Another Perspective
Playing With Pacifism
The Evangelical Left’s misappropriation of Karl Barth.
The modern Evangelical Left does not want to defend America, and the great mid-20th century Protestant theologian Karl Barth might partly be at fault. Much of the modern Evangelical Left is literally or functionally pacifist, looking to thinkers like Stanley Hauerwas of Duke Divinity School, Glenn Stassen of Fuller Seminary, activists like Jim Wallis of Sojourners and Ron Sider of Evangelicals for Social Action, or self-proclaimed urban monastic Shane Claiborne.
In his book last year Jesus for President, Claiborne equated the U.S. with the biblical Whore of Babylon and the Roman Empire, which, like America, tried to “slaughter God’s love in the world.” If the Apostle John were writing his Apocalypse today, he would use a “phrase such as ‘mission accomplished’ or describe the image of a flaming oil field under a sky of black smoke,” the popular evangelical speaker surmised.
Hauerwas, whom Time magazine has pronounced as America’s most “influential” theologian, is more sophisticated than Claiborne but no less polemically pacifist and anti-American. “Because I am a pacifist, the American ‘we’ will never be my ‘me,’” he has written, having blamed the U.S. for stirring up 9/11’s terrorism through its own violent imperialism.
Not usually as provocative as Hauerwas or Claiborne, and trying to grab a larger share of evangelical opinion, some on the Evangelical Left have masked their pacifism behind anti-Iraq War protests, without fully explaining they oppose participation in any violence. The anti-torture campaign by the Evangelical Left, which has insisted that all U.S. aggressive interrogation is “torture,” without precisely defining torture, has also rested on pacifist assumptions.
Some of the pacifism is Anabaptist in origin, and the late Mennonite theologian John Howard Yoder, who taught at Notre Dame and who reinterpreted the Crucifixion as a metaphor against all violence, is a favorite to much of the Evangelical Left. Hauerwas credits Yoder for explaining that, “Nonviolence is the way that God has redeemed the world through cross and resurrection.” Along with Hauerwas and many others, Yoder looked to Barth, under whom he studied at the University of Basel, in Switzerland. Such admirers discern in the Swiss theologian, sometimes unfairly, a hostility to force, even by legitimate state authority.
Yoder admiringly wrote Karl Barth and the Problem of War, in which he argued that Barth was a “chastened non-pacifist” whose theology ultimately argues against war, even if Barth himself was not explicitly pacifist. Undoubtedly Barth’s rejection of natural law his rejection of natural law, and ambiguous attitude towards civil authority, precluded enthusiasm for Christianity’s dominant Just War tradition. He refused to compromise with Nazism while teaching in 1930s Germany and was forced into exile back into his native Switzerland. While stalwartly anti-Nazi and supportive of Western resolve against Hitler, Barth’s stance towards the Soviet Union and communism were more ambivalent.
In 1951, Barth defended his ambivalence towards the Soviets in an article, somewhat ironically, for Christianity and Crisis, the journal Reinhold Niebuhr founded to combat Christian pacifism on the cusp of World War II. “The determination, whether rightly or wrongly motivated, to resist Stalinist Communist aggression is the common policy of the West,” he wrote. “Its intensification through a Christian word is superfluous.” He urged a calm silence for Christians during the Cold War, in the midst of “hysteria and fear.”
Insisting he was no pacifist, Barth recalled that peace with Hitler was “neither human nor Christian.” He admitted that if he were an American or British statesmen, he would not “neglect preparations for a possible military defense.” But he inaccurately asserted that Russia had not presented any “ultimatum or committed aggression.” And he warned against war fever, urging resistance to any “holy crusade against Russia and communism.”
Rather than military rearmament, Barth suggested Western emphasis on social justice. He particularly warned against German rearmament within the Western alliance, as “it is impossible to expect of the German people that they arm for a war that is bound to be a civil war for them.” Barth’s discomfort with a remilitarized Germany soon after World War II may be understandable. But his unease extended to nearly all Western assertiveness during the Cold War.
In 1960, Barth wrote for the Christian Century that he could not agree with the “great majority” about the East-West question. He professed no “inclination” towards Eastern communism, and “decidedly prefer[ed] not to live within its sphere and do not wish anyone else to be forced to do so.” But he denounced anticommunism as an “evil even greater than communism itself.” Barth thought communism’s “inhuman compulsion” was not necessarily inferior to the “fleshpots” of capitalism.
Portraying communists as “enemies” was a “typical invention” of “defunct dictators,” Barth complained, and only the “Hitler in us” could be anticommunist “on principle.” He remembered that the West, grateful for Soviet defeat of the Nazis, had conceded Eastern Europe to the Soviets, whose quest for security was hardly “incomprehensible.” Later Western calls for “rollback” understandably forced the Soviets to react defensively, which the West then mischaracterized as an “offensive military threat.”
Barth indignantly asked: “Did we not provoke him [Russia] by erecting a massive Western defense alliance, by encircling him with artillery, by establishing the German Federal Republic — which seemed to him like a clenched fist pushed under his nose — and by rearming this republic [the U.S.] and equipping it with nuclear missiles.” He thought the “higher consecration” of the Cold War struggle against Soviet communism complete “madness.”
The East had offered the West “neutrality” and “coexistence,” Barth lamented, but was refused. And the churches had “injured” the Gospel by linking it with the “badly planned and ineptly guided cause of the West” rather than understanding the East’s “dialectical reality.” Barth noted that he had been accused of being a “crypto-communist” and “fellow traveler,” or at least a “politically naïve dilettante,” getting “mischievous pleasure out of confounding the bourgeoisie.”
Likewise, Barth had been challenged for the “flagrant self-contradiction of refusing to reiterate against communism what I had once brought forward against National Socialism,” he admitted. He also was called basely ungrateful for the “privileges and benefits of the ‘free world.’” Even in Switzerland, there were “small McCarthys” who tormented Barth for his “anti-democratic” and “anti-humanistic” stance in the Cold War, he bemoaned, especially for his “silence” about the Soviet invasion of Hungary.
Barth had no apologies and instead excoriated his critics. “What if the luckless era of Dulles and Adenauer should come to and end?” he sarcastically asked. “What if the German Lutherans would one day turn from their evil ways? What if from the Vatican or from Geneva instead of meaningless generalities a prophetic apostolic word of repentance and peace were to be heard one morning?” Of course, the West never lived up to Barth’s hopes for accommodation with the Soviet Union.
About the Author
Mark Tooley is president of the Institute on Religion and Democracy in Washington, D.C. and author of Methodism and Politics in the Twentieth Century. You can follow him on Twitter @markdtooley.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (29) | Leave a comment
Related Articles
More Articles by Mark Tooley
More Articles From Another Perspective
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/08/25/playing-with-pacifism
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Lazlo H.| 8.25.09 @ 10:53AM
Yeah, Karl Barth is pretty great. Congratulations on writing an article that mostly represents your opponents in a true light, Mr. Tooley. I'm used to reading you in FrontPage, but this is much better. I guess I've underestimated the American Spectator's editors.
Vern Crisler | 8.25.09 @ 12:27PM
It’s no surprise that Arthur Schlesinger would say that Karl Barth reminded him of “a leftover from Henry Wallace's pro-Communist activities in 1948.”
While Barth was an interesting dialectical theologian and writer, he was also a lifelong socialist. His theological nominalism was simply a mirror image of his Olympian above-it-all leftism and his anti-capitalism.
For an admiring but still somewhat worthwhile discussion of Barth’s theology of permanent revolution, see Timothy Gorringe, Karl Barth: Against Hegemony, 1999.
David H.| 8.25.09 @ 1:43PM
This article is not a criticism of Barth as such. It is a repeat of an ancient debate within Christianity. Within this debate, one side emphasizes God's grace, while the other side emphasizes right reason's capacity to approach the divine. The former side see all things through the cross, rendering even the Cold War divisions of East and West trivial. The latter side sees God as working through us, making our choice between liberty and tyranny clear. Stated simply, do we trust God alone to make all things right, or do we see ourselves as his junior partners in making things right? There is no right answer here. The debate is older than Protestant or Roman Catholic, and is infinitely complicated within the breast of each individual. Indeed, Barth himself professed to be willing to fight in the Swiss militia as long as he faced against Hitler's Reich. In charity, we should also give any man a break for pacifism who came of age as a pastor during the Christian-on-Christian slaughter of World War I.
I would ask Mr. Tooley not to call certain Protestants "blithe" for basing their faith on a radical conception of God's sovereignty and grace. Agree or disagree, it is a vital perspective on Christianity.
Big Leo| 8.25.09 @ 2:16PM
As a student of theology for fifty years, and a religious professional, I understand the appeal of pacifism. I grew up in Amish country, and admire them for their lifestyle. However, I noticed that all the Amish, Quakers, and Mennonites who were attacked or violently robbed would call a policeman. In a broken world, total pacifism doesn't reduce violence-- it merely provides an easier field for the predators of our society to prey in. My father experienced the Russian Civil War and fought in WWII. Naturally, he hated war. Because of this he was in favor of a strong army and an enormous navy. His simple reason was that no country ever attacks an enemy who is stronger. Since he also trusted in the virtue of America, he saw this as contributing far more to peace than Barth or his followers ever could.
Alan Brooks| 8.25.09 @ 7:03PM
Rheinhold Niehbur (sp?) is the man to read.
Vern Crisler| 8.25.09 @ 7:48PM
David H, the problem with leftist pacifism is the hypocrisy -- willing to stand up to socialism of the nationalist kind (Nazism), but not of the internationalist kind (Leninism, Stalinism).
David H.| 8.25.09 @ 8:24PM
Dear Mr. Crisler, your statement is true, but only to the extent embodied in (literally, in the human agency of) the term "stand up." The radical view of God's sovereignty and grace that I was characterizing in my earlier post does not accept the need for man's agency. Barth's last recorded words were simply, "He reigns." Not Kaiser Wilhelm or President Wilson, not Hitler or Churchill, nor Eisenhower or Stalin (Barth lived through them all, with all the perspective that brought him), but God. I don't discount a theology of radical grace simply because some left-wing hypocrites support internationalist dictators but oppose nationalist dictators. From Barth's perspective, who or what one opposes is almost beside the point. Anything besides faith in God is beside the point. If God truly reigns, then there will be one body through the cross. To Barth, either we believe that or we don't.
By the way, I am neither a Barthian nor a liberal Protestant. I am simply trying to justice to Barth's position.
Liberal Reader| 8.25.09 @ 11:51PM
Nice piece, Mr Tooley.
Liberal Reader| 8.25.09 @ 11:57PM
Vern --
For the love of God: just because the Nazis put "socialism" in their name does NOT mean they were socialists.
Hitler recruited young mostly uneducated men from the lower classes who were involved in trade union activity. They were tantalized by the word "socialism," so Hitler used it. As soon as he gained power, these men were largely drafted into the military and their leaders were executed.
Hitler and his fellow Nazis loathed socialism and everything it stood for. He capitalized on fear of socialism and communism and used it to justify his barbarity.
While totalitarian socialism does have some similarities with Nazism, there is NO inherent similarity between democratic socialism and Nazism.
None. And I don't CARE what you heard on Rush Limbaugh.
This is actually pretty basic stuff if you take an introductory political science class.
There are REASONS why the different words ("socialism," "fascism") exist. Like "salamander" and "slug," their referents are DIFFERENT, even though they share some characteristics.
Hitler had a mustache. Tom Selleck had a mistache. But Magnum PI is not Nazi propaganda. Do you think you can handle that?
Liberal Reader| 8.26.09 @ 12:03AM
U.S.S.R. stood for Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
Republics?
Yes. Therefore, all Republicans are Soviet-style totalitarian socialists.
See how this works?
If a dictatorial regime puts a WORD in their name, that word then comes to mean something new.
You people need to EDUCATE yourselves. Nazi German was NOT a socialist state by any means; not by ideology, not in structure. It was not, was not, was not, was not socialist.
göğüs büyütücü | 8.27.09 @ 11:29AM
only to 1.4 in almost a year, not good. wifi restrictions need to be lifted to make "the social" work, add video to zm. in short the zune is the only good thing about owning a zune.
sex shop | 8.27.09 @ 11:29AM
only to 1.4 in almost a year, not good. wifi restrictions need to be lifted to make "the social" work, add video to zm. in short the zune is the only good thing about owning a zune.
Steve Schaper| 8.27.09 @ 11:39AM
Evangelical refers to those who a) believe in sola Scriptura, the inerrancy and authority of Scripture, and b) the gospel of Christ's atonement for our sins on the Cross, received through faith.
Wallis (who's previous project "The Wittenberg Door" makes more sense as an Alinskyan project), Sider and the others are -not- evangelicals. Nor is Neo-Orthodoxy to be confused with orthodoxy.
Todd| 8.27.09 @ 3:52PM
This thread may be done but Liberal Reader has got it wrong as usual in stating that the Nazi's were not socialist and it was just a trick by Hitler. Do you know what socialism is? It is when the government controls the means of production. Communism differs in that it "owns" not just controls and there is no such thing as private property. Every accurate portrayal of Nazi Germany demonstrates they were socialist through and through and very much into environment as well. It comes as no surprise Liberal Reader clings to the lie that that communism and fascism are ideological opposites rather sides of the same coin that they are.
Pingback| 3.15.10 @ 7:42AM
Is Jim Wallis Morally Serious? « The Enterprise Blog links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
poptropica | 4.8.10 @ 11:35PM
I’ll have a Poptropica full written walkthrough very soon, but in the meantime, here are some answers to some of the frequently asked questions about Mythology Island. Having trouble? Post a question in the comments and I’ll try to answer it!
Getting Hercules to Help You
Hercules won’t help you until you have all five items from Zeus’ quest. Once you have the five items, bring them to Athena. Zeus will appear and steal them. The big jerk! Once this happens, talk to Athena and she will tell you that Hercules will help you. You’ll need to have the magic mirror from Aphrodite because Hercules doesn’t want to have to walk. He’s so lazy!
Getting the Hydra Scale
You can see how to do this in the videos, but basically you need to jump up when the Hydra is about to strike. He will rear one of his heads back to attack and his eyes will bulge out. When this happens, jump up in the air and then try to land on top of his head. That head will get knocked out. When all five heads get knocked out, the Hydra will be asleep and you can click on him to get one of the scales. Poptropica I’ll have a full written walkthrough very soon, but in the meantime, here are some answers to some of the frequently asked questions about Mythology Island. Having trouble? Post a question in the comments and I’ll try to answer it!
Getting Hercules to Help You
poptropica | 4.8.10 @ 11:36PM
I’ll have a Poptropica full written walkthrough very soon, but in the meantime, here are some answers to some of the frequently asked questions about Mythology Island. Having trouble? Post a question in the comments and I’ll try to answer it!
Getting Hercules to Help You
Hercules won’t help you until you have all five items from Zeus’ quest. Once you have the five items, bring them to Athena. Zeus will appear and steal them. The big jerk! Once this happens, talk to Athena and she will tell you that Hercules will help you. You’ll need to have the magic mirror from Aphrodite because Hercules doesn’t want to have to walk. He’s so lazy!
Getting the Hydra Scale
You can see how to do this in the videos, but basically you need to jump up when the Hydra is about to strike. He will rear one of his heads back to attack and his eyes will bulge out. When this happens, jump up in the air and then try to land on top of his head. That head will get knocked out. When all five heads get knocked out, the Hydra will be asleep and you can click on him to get one of the scales. Poptropica I’ll have a full written walkthrough very soon, but in the meantime, here are some answers to some of the frequently asked questions about Mythology Island. Having trouble? Post a question in the comments and I’ll try to answer it!
Getting Hercules to Help You