It was great having two new people this past week. We're definitely having more fun than should be allowed!
This chapter, "Why I am Not a Pacifist," was actually a talk given by Lewis to a pacifist group in 1940. There was much speculation in our group as to how that came about. Did they not know his position? Did they invite him, looking for a fight? (Not in the literal sense, of course...maybe a Scrabble duel or something.) Regardless, he lays down a thorough foundation (some say too thorough) for how he's going to examine the pacifist position. He looks at it from the perspectives of facts/reason, intution and authority and ultimately finds no strong argument for accepting the pacifist position as the right one, particularly for a Christian believer.
In the interest of time, I'll forego the usual collection of quotes, though there are many. Whether you're a war-monger or a pacifist, I'd strongly encourage you to read this chapter. Most people have never critically considered their own position, and I think Lewis creates a good framework for this, whether you agree with his conclusions or not.
I will pass on couple of articles I found elsewhere responding to "Why I am Not a Pacifist," both supportive and critical of Lewis:
"Failure of the non-violent Gospel: tragically, C.S. Lewis and much of Christendom are pro-violence" from the Catholic New Times
The Problem of War: C.S. Lewis on Pacifism, War & the Christian Warrior from Touchstone: A Journal of Mere Christianity
For the sake of full-disclosure, a couple people from this group joined me to go shooting the weekend prior to this discussion. No hateful epithets were heard nor were any bloodythirsty looks observed. I'm a peace-lover. Though it may seem paradoxical to some, I am not a pacifist precisely because I am a peace-lover. That said, all perspectives were and are welcome. We seek the truth ultimately and hopefully can hold our opinions loosely in that pursuit, prepared to surrender our own ideas for God's should we find the two to be at odds.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Just to add two definitions that were brought up during the pacifist discussion that I find interesting:
Fact: A theoretically significant observation.
Truth: That which exists void of independent thought.
So a fact could be seen as a contextual truth, e.g. a smoking gun laying next to a dead body was used in the murder...when there could have been no murder at all.
Thanks, Dave. Beat me to it. Great definitions!
Going further, would it be fair to say that someone could be honest without telling the truth?
Example: Cop says "Just the facts ma'am." She gives him (or her) her theoretically significant observation. She is being honest, in that she has told what she has observed without intentionally deceiving the officer, but she may have not told the truth because she didn't know it.
Post a Comment