A lot of modern-day Quakers like to think that Quakers have in all places and all times been clearly against all wars (see this recent Reddit thread for evidence). JW at Places to Go blog tells some of the stories that go against this myth.
Enough Quakers had qualms about pacifism in the face of these two great evils that Meetings wrestled with both members who chose to serve and fight against them, and the orthodoxy enshrined against fighting. What I found most heart warming was the Meetings who welcomed back their veterans with love and understanding and forgiveness. What I found disappointing was those Meetings which stripped those veterans of membership.
I myself am very much a pacifist. I have faith that the spirit of Christ will always provide a third way between violence and surrender. Is this trust warranted? Backed by political science or history? Probably not. My faith is the faith of a child, which my religious tradition tells me is a millstone I should be ready to carry.
But I’m also a human who watches horrors happening all over the globe. I don’t pretend to know any secret prayer that will stop Russian aggression against Ukraine, much less the indiscriminate terror of Hamas or the mass slaughter being carried out by the Israeli Defense Forces. I can share my faith in the Prince of Peace with my fellow humans but I can’t insist that they not struggle with it.
The modern history of the Quaker peace testimony was shaped in part by the need for members of the historic peace churches to pass the qualifications for U.S. conscientious objection laws during the World Wars (though if I’m not mistaken Friends helped draft those qualifications). For CO status one needs to have a sincere religious beliefs against all wars, context notwithstanding. I was trained as a CO counselor many many years ago and this was an important point to get across (some of this strictness has changed over the years and I’m no expert in current regulations). Purity is a hard standard in the real world when our consciences are pricked by the injustice we see.
I’ve written about the peace testimony many times, of course, most recently for Friends Journal (“Wrestling with the Peace Testimony”) and on this blog (“Presenting on the Peace Testimony”).
historicplacessj.blogspot.com
I liked your comment about ideological purity. It can be an impossible standard. Purists about anything scare me with their intransigence. Isn’t part of our faith forgiveness? I think God speaks to us through our conscience and I think it’s true that evil flourishes when good men do nothing. War is a horrible thing and leads to more war but who am I to decide for someone else that they cannot protect their families or their homes?