|The Christians at the Elim Mission Station
in Rhodesia were such convinced pacifists that, even within a few kilometres of Marxist
Mozambique during a vicious war they refused to be armed. They had neither a fence nor
dogs to protect them. They refused to allow the security forces to station some guards for
their protection. When terrorists visited Elim the missionaries provided them with food
and medical supplies. One fateful night ZANLA guerillas herded the 9 missionaries and 4
children onto one of the fields. Then in front of the parents they hacked the children to
death. Then in front of the husbands they raped and tortured the women to death. Finally
they brutally murdered the men. Yet so effectively had their pacifist doctrine neutralised
them that there was no attempt at resistance. The men stood by and watched ruthless
terrorists butcher their loved ones.
Peter Hammond, SECURITY AND SURVIVAL IN UNSTABLE TIMES; Claremont RSA, United
Christian Action; p.12
[From a page entitled,
"What authority has the Christian freeman to keep and bear arms?"
|Jesus says we are to give food and drink
(and, by extension, medical supplies) to our enemies. It doesn't
sound like Mr. Hammond agrees with Jesus.
Anyone who thinks 9 missionaries and 4
children can ultimately defend themselves against an army is a fool. This kind of thinking
was seen in Waco, Texas. I would rather die like Christ -- not "defending
myself," but giving my life for my enemies' -- than die trying to kill others.
Hundreds of thousands of Christians have been murdered in the pagan outposts of Africa. If
a Marxist army wants to kill you and your fellow missionaries, you are dead meat unless
God miraculously intervenes. Why bother killing a few Marxists on your way out?
There may have been "no attempt at resistance" using iron swords or M-16's,
but obviously there had been intense spiritual resistance, or the Marxists would have
allowed the missionaries to live. Marxists were confronted with the image of Christ, and
they treated the missionaries as they would have treated Christ, and the missionaries
followed Christ's example. "Neutralized?" I don't think so.
Who knows what seeds were planted by the deaths of those pacifist missionaries?
I think more needs to be said about this kind of argument,
and how it fits in the overall strategy of anti-pacifists against what I call
"anarcho-pacifism." I call it anarcho-pacifism because
I believe consistent opposition to violence would logically lead to dedicated, non-violent opposition to the State,
which is institutionalized violence.
Anarcho-pacifists are vocal opponents of the theft, kidnapping,
and genocide committed by every State. The anti-pacifists are almost always very patriotic, and their attack against
pacifism is particularly emphatic when pacifists begin to question the legitimacy of the
State's wars and police.
What makes the anti-pacifists so wrong is that they use such
pathetic, improbable anecdotes -- abstractions -- in order to defend wide-scale
concrete acts of theft and murder committed by organized "government."
The anecdote above is a typical example. The situation, though very real,
is utterly atypical, and to that extent very unrealistic. In a nation of 270 million
Americans, how many have been invaded by armed Marxist guerillas? But this contingency is
urged as a basis for preparing and training for lethal self-defense.
- By "preparing" I mean buying or stockpiling weapons.
- By "training" I mean mentally disciplining ourselves to
respond to threats against our persons or property with armed violence, rather than love
for our enemy and Christ-like witness; filling our heads with visions of armed intruders
and visualizing our violent reaction so that in that statistically
unlikely event we may instantly, instinctively, habitually, thoughtlessly, without
hesitation respond with rapid deployment of terminal force.
Further, anti-pacifists put an obstacle in the path of those who would
train themselves to react to violence as spontaneous peacemakers, with creative acts and
prophetic utterances which disarm anger and are used by God to bring about conversion in
the life of the attacker. "What would you do if . . . " is the question always
posed to pacifists, using grandmothers, wives, and daughters as the hypothetical victims
of random, impersonal, unpredictable violence (a statistical abnormality compared to
violence resulting from a known, if not related, attacker, following years of less-than
Christlike interpersonal relationships).
That brings us to the most important issue of all.
Pacifists are accused of being "unrealistic" and
"impractical," and their strategies of non-violent witnessing on the road to the
Cross are said to lack understanding of "the real world." For proof, the
anti-pacifist offers a scenario which never happens in the lives of the overwhelming
majority of people, and in cases where it does occur, can often be
resolved peacefully without destroying a human life with lethal violence.
Moving from the personal realm to the social realm, the patriotic
anti-pacifist then urges all of human society to be organized around death and
violence, rather than a peaceful, decentralized, Christian anarcho-pacifistic society.
Our lives are regimented
and our wallets emptied
to support the institutionalization of anti-pacifism.
And on what basis? We are offered the statistical
improbability of "the government" being able to defend us against an attack by
another [anti-pacifist] government which (we are assured) has become a threat to us
without our own anti-pacifist government in any way aiding them through technology
transfers, weapons sales, foreign aid packages, or low-interest IMF loans at our expense.
(Really, now; can we trust anti-pacifists [people who place their faith
in lethal violence to selfishly protect themselves] NOT to sell arms to
"most favored nations" full of good [but Communist] "businessmen??"
Every single person in government is ipso facto committed to violence
and socialism to some degree. [That is the inescapable, inherent nature
of "the government."])
In exchange for this "protection" is a cost -- a reality --
from which the anti-pacifist seeks to divert our attention, using historical and
political smoke and mirrors: the improbable events of unknown/unpredictable attacker
and/or spontaneously-arising socialist military . Here is the short list of these costly
- Total warfare against innocent non-combatant
- Over 1 million innocent Iraqi peasants
- Racism, genocide, and sexual deviancy
which result from government rejection of Christian pacifism;
- "Crisis" as an excuse for the rise of
- 10,000 murders of innocent people by anti-pacifist governments per
day in the 20th century;
- Proposals to exterminate 15,000 more
"useless eaters" per hour in the 21st century (until
the standard of living of our anti-pacifist "protectors" is assured);
- the myth of prevention: the threatened destruction of hundreds of
millions of "enemy" civilians AFTER millions of Americans have ALREADY been
nuked ("Mutual Assured Destruction").
The first six are present realities.
The toll in tax-supported human suffering
-- trillions of dollars and hundreds of millions of lives
caused by the institution created by anti-pacifists
must be weighed against 9 missionaries and 4 children.
This is the real battle between pacifists and patriots.
Tell me I'm Wrong | | Pacifism Home | | Anarchism
Home | | V&FT Home