Volume XI – Number 2
Susan Richey
Abstract: Christian Pacifism attempted to disprove the inevitability of war; however, prominent religious and political leaders of the movement — A.J. Muste, Norman Thomas, and Reinhold Niebuhr — disagreed on the causes of war, and how to respond. Muste asserted that individuals’ corrupted morals caused war, while Thomas and Niebuhr believed social inequality and collective corrupted morals caused war. In response to war, Muste and Thomas claimed that states should declare neutrality, and that citizens should non-violently resist. Niebuhr concurred that nonviolent resistance was preferable to conflict, but he argued that nonviolent resistance permitted social injustice by encouraging self-assertion in others. In other words, those who violently assert power will more easily do so without formidable resistance. Therefore, Niebuhr argued, society is in a constant condition of war — God’s absolutely peaceful Kingdom could never be achieved on Earth — and that states need to use as little coercion as necessary in order to uphold justice in society, which is the second best thing to the Kingdom of God. Altogether, Christian Pacifism’s principal political influence manifested in the ability of individuals to assemble and hinder government efficiency; yet, a government that is not strong enough to maintain order can not guarantee any sort of lasting peace.
Key Words: World War I, World War II, Christian Pacifism, A.J. Muste, Norman Thomas, Reinhold Niebuhr, non-violent resistance, peace, labor strikes, neutrality, isolationism, Hitler, Fellowship of Reconciliation, Keep America Out of War Congress, Socialist Party
You must be logged in to post a comment.