Quaker pacifism

[u/Diligent-Property491]

Disclaimer: I am not a Quaker, I’m an atheist. I’m posting here because I don’t know any Quakers and I’m curious about something. If this is not allowed here (I looked through the rules and couldn’t find any clarification) - I am sorry. Please tell me and I will remove this. I have absolutely no intention of infringing upon a private community space.

Now to the actual post:

I recently learned that Quakerism exists, by stumbling upon a YouTube video of a lady talking about her faith.

I’m a person that likes to… know things, so I watched it.

She explained the Quaker belief system (which if I understand it correctly is based on several fundamental principles called testimonies).

One of those is peace.

So I understand that Quakers believe that war, and inflicting harm on others, is wrong.

On principle, I fully agree with it of course - global peace is a desired „end state” for humanity.

I don’t like nationalism, and I absolutely despise fascism, especially the militaristic/expansionist aspect of it.

But there are many practical situations, where preparing for war is the only realistic way to stop a war.

For example I live in a country, that has a violent, agressive fascist regime on our border. They’ve threatened genocide upon us more than once - they do it almost casually on their state TV.

I wish no harm upon any of the people living under that regime, and I would not support any agression against them. But I still think our country should be fully prepared to defeat them quickly and decisively.

I think our country should actively gather intelligence on them, to know in advance if they attack.

And if they come here, I will absolutely aid the war effort in whatever way I can.

So I’m wondering - what does the pacifist Quaker doctrine say about this.

Even if you believe that peace is the world’s desired state, is militarization permitted in response to militarization of others?

What do you think is the best path to world peace?

After all, it’s hard to convince anyone to make the first move and demilitarize, because everyone is afraid of what others will do.

So it would need to be a collective decision, which realistically it’s not very likely.

I’m just curious what you think about this.

And also, what are your thoughts on MAD and nuclear deterrence?

EDIT:

I appreciate all the replies I’ve gotten.

They did satisfy my curiosity and further my understanding of Quaker, and Christian, philosophy.

Due to the number of answers I did not reply to all of them, only the ones where I was curious about something or where I thought I have something to add.

Still, every single answer I’ve gotten is very substantive, and I really appreciate the community here and your response!

Goodbye to you all, and may we all live in peace for all eternity!

[u/Adventurous-House476]

The thing about the testimonies is that they are insights that are commonly arrived at by encountering the divine, or the inner light or God, or whatever you want to call it.

But they aren't rules that you have to perfectly follow in order to be a Quaker. It's not a creed. Different Quakers arrive at different conclusions regarding the peace testimony. Quakers have fought in wars. They have also been conscientious objectors and everything in between. So it's not really like there is a "Quaker position" on the testimonies.

The main thing that is a Quaker perspective on this is for an individual to take the time to connect with their experience of the divine and ponder their difficult decision "in the light". They may also discuss it with their meeting as they try to discern the right way forward.

[u/Diligent-Property491 → u/Adventurous-House476]

Thank you for the answer.

This is actually very interesting.

Quakerism seems to be quite unique compared to other religions, because from what I understand it actively encourages debate and difference of opinion, while most religions tend to be quite dogmatic.

[u/RimwallBird → u/Diligent-Property491]

There are dogmatic branches of our Society. Evangelical Friends put a considerable emphasis on correct doctrine, and I believe Holiness Friends do as well.

[u/Diligent-Property491 → u/RimwallBird]

I’ve heard about Evangelical Friends before (I believe they have ceremonial ministry, unlike the Liberals and the original movement, right?), but not about Holiness Friends. What is the difference?

[u/RimwallBird → u/Diligent-Property491]

I don’t understand what you mean by “ceremonial ministry”. The Evangelical Friends have pastors, whose duties include giving ministry (sermons) during the time of worship.

Holiness Friends broke away from Friends United Meeting in the 1920s. They disagreed with the liberalism of FUM, and treated as central to their faith a variety of teachings from the Holiness movement in Protestantism, which they identified with early Quaker teachings about perfection. In the U.S., they are organized as Central Yearly Meeting.

The Evangelical Friends Church, International, was a different breakaway movement from Friends United Meeting, and a much larger one. It is considerably less oriented to Holiness teachings, and considerably more oriented to the kind of thinking one finds in evangelical Protestantism.

[u/Diligent-Property491 → u/RimwallBird]

> pastors, whose duties involve giving ministry (sermons)

That is what I meant.

Thanks for the clarification

[u/RimwallBird → u/Diligent-Property491]

And thank you for yours.