Denying Oneself - by Robert E Lee

One of the best debates I, as a military Christian, ever had was with a bonafide, devout, and extremely intelligent Jehovah's Witness, a religiously devout pacifist, about pacifism. It had everything a good debate is supposed to have, well reasoned arguments supported by evidence, scientific, historical, scriptural, and natural and bounded by passion and intensity on both sides yet conducted with decorum and mutual respect. It was the kind of debate that challenged core commitments on both sides and appealed to the sole of a man and wound up presenting, supporting, and defending positions of pure pacifism and the limited use of violence.

In all honesty, it is a question I've struggled with and one in which I think many Soldiers around the world struggle with, for there is power in glory, in vanquishing ones foes, and defending those in need - but there are consequences to doing so and the trade off can be pyrrhic. I have often wondered whether pacifism is the better way, and have immense respect for those who hold this opinion. In my case, despite probing and challenge, the reasoning always leads to the narrowest of exception, even as I acknowledge that for every tyrant vanquished as a result there is another who will squeak through the narrowest of opening to ply his terror build upon a false narrative of exceptionalism.

As a result, I'd like to start some threads that demonstrate a few key points along the way of reasoning. At best to educate, at worse to share my conundrum.

Robert E Lee is a titan in history. Whether you loath him for his support of the confederacy, admire him for craftiness and brutal efficiency as a tactician, his effect has been profound on American history. In brief, he followed his conscience in a looming and terrible war, turning down command of the Union Armies so that he would not have to make war against his own people. Stripped of his lands and caste into obscurity in the Confederacy, he rose to prominence again when Confederate armies were locked into stalemate with the Union and 'Old Granny' quietly walked in and immediately crushed the Union Army. The battles he lead are the stuff of legend. Feared by his enemies, he was loved by friends and comrades. He attracted subordinate leaders like Stonewall Jackson and James Longstreet, who were legends in their own right and who would and did subordinate themselves to the superiority of Lee in command without compulsion. Yet in the end he lost everything. In the end, with defeat looming, he accepted defeat rather than fight a guerrilla war, and returned home with a heavy heart to be vilified by lesser men.

It is along that route home that young woman, recently having given birth to a son, recognized the contrite Lee. She dared ask Lee to bless her son with guidance that would keep him straight. Lee's answer was simple and straightforward, and his answer is insightful both to him and to larger world we live in: Teach him to deny himself.

Robert E Lee did not find glory because he sought it, in sharp contrast to men like Custer. He was thrust into it by conscience and need to salvage that which was dear. The glory of victory was marred by the loss of friends and a conscience that heavily bore the cost. The long hours and tremendous sacrifice worked were not for his satisfaction but to provide able guidance to his Army and State. The personal cost that Robert E Lee bore was grievous, but the warrior image of tenacity and great daring paired to reluctant but honorable service have gifted the South with something of incredible value: A legacy defined by something more than slavery.

That is the power of selflessness. That is the power of placing the needs of others before yourself. That is the power of honestly defining the issues by conscience and following convictions. The price on the person can be great and terrible, but the rewards of selflessness are never meant for ones self - they are felt by those served. Robert E Lee's life provides a lens for the examination of selflessness, and a mark upon the wall of warrior traditions that are bound first and foremost in the service of others. His tale, and the actions of conscience that first tore apart a Nation and then helped mend it back together as equals is an experience worth examining.

gree0232: Reminds me of one of my favorite war stories: Archibald Baxter. Probably the most hardcore Christian pacifist ever, who put his ideals before his personal safety right to the end. Gotta respect any man who, being conscripted, after being beaten up (quite seriously) by your own side for several weeks, starved and forced to undergo humiliating punishments for refusing to pick up a gun or put on a uniform, before being forced to sleep on a pile of heavy explosives which the Germans were bombing, practically left to die, and still never once wavers in what he considers his duty (and by some miracle, he survived the war practically unscathed except psychologically). He never wanted fame or glory for what he did - he just did it because he knew he was right.

In New Zealand we kinda celebrate victories of peace at least as much as war (to be fair, the biggest battle we ever waged was at Gallipoli, and we kinda lost). National Waitangi celebrations honoring the partnership on which we were founded, commemorations of the peaceful settlement at Parihaka etc are all part of that. I believe that if conscience says to anybody to kill somebody else, then they must have a very amoral conscience (and I say this as a strong atheist). As Milton said, Peace is just as victorious as war. There's so much the world could achieve if we all stopped just accepting that we have to fight each other, and began believing that peace is always an option. Tyrants too can be deposed peacefully, just as they can be deposed by killing lots of people, but I know which alternative I would prefer.

@admin - Not enough explosions in peace
JK, I agree peace needs to be celebrated more!

@gree0232 - Something I like to ask military Christians: What are your thoughts on the bible passage, "Thou shalt not kill?"

Blackflag: It usually understood and taught asthma shalt not murder. Even that is inaccurate in total, but the meaning and understanding in most denominations is that one should not take the lives of innocents - the guilty are another matter entirely. The Bible contains more than a single line, and the Bible is pretty clear that God abhors the killing of innocents - even as he himself has wrecked havoc at the wicked.

Contextually it means its OK to shoot a guy who has strapped explosives to his body and is about to blow up a playground full of kids. Don't shoot the kids. I think God, in that sense was pretty sure most people understood we'd get this.

If you are looking for an accurate statement, though not Catholic myself, the Catholic Just War Doctrine has the message about right.

I'm pretty sure, as the debates about God's actions in the OT are brought with emotion on the subject of killing, that responsibility of knowing when kill and when not to was one of the damned most difficult things humanity would struggle with. Best to avoid it if at all possible. However, evil is a very tangibly real thing. It cannot always be held back with reason alone.

As a rejoinder, I have found it very interesting that many of the more militant atheists will simultaneously condemn God for killing in one breadth, and in the next instant claim he is not real because he is not smiting evil doers left and right for them. Always an interesting juxtaposition, and I one I feel that particular branch of atheism offers nothing on the problems this world actually throws at us to deal with collectively. It effectively states that you are damned if you do (now you are a craven killer) and damned if don't (now you are coward who refuses to do what is necessary) with mutually exclusive and highly select scripture to support ... both.

Well, God has, from the very beginning counseled us to seek wisdom, and that means studying to reach conclusions that are beneficial and solipsism ending in epistemological stalemate.

Today, governments have to make decisions on whether or not to go to war. Police have to decide whether or not to protect people. Individuals have to decide whether or not to defend themselves. And the range of circumstances defies a ones size fits all solution. Murderers abound. Whether to let the murder us as a matter of principal is indeed the debate. In the denomination I follow, the answer is ... yes you can defend yourself.

The reality of practiced violence however is rarely that easy.

gree0232: Fair enough. Why do you think god chose to say "thou shall not kill," instead of "thou shall not kill innocents?"

Furthermore, define innocence

admin: gree0232: Reminds me of one of my favorite war stories: Archibald Baxter. Probably the most hardcore Christian pacifist ever, who put his ideals before his personal safety right to the end. Gotta respect any man who, being conscripted, after being beaten up (quite seriously) by your own side for several weeks, starved and forced to undergo humiliating punishments for refusing to pick up a gun or put on a uniform, before being forced to sleep on a pile of heavy explosives which the Germans were bombing, practically left to die, and still never once wavers in what he considers his duty (and by some miracle, he survived the war practically unscathed except psychologically). He never wanted fame or glory for what he did - he just did it because he knew he was right.

I don't in any way intend to downplay the significance of what Archibald Baxter did. It is an astounding and inspiring story of personal conviction. I offer nothing but praise for Archibald and his actions, and indeed condemn those who required such sacrifice to demonstrate his convictions. What was done to him was wrong.

My problem is not with the action of the Archibald, but what Archibald's failed to influence: WWI. We we al Archibald's, I have little doubt that the entire world would be a better place. We are not. We are not just diverse, we span a spectrum of moral conduct and character that Archibald rightly manifests within those of the absolutely best of conduct. WWI nevertheless happened (it was not the first general war by any means), and among the millions of men who marched of to industrial slaughter were the rapacious, the craven, the selfless, the beguiliing, and men and women of honor who traded their virtue on the killing grounds to advance what they believed right or to protect that which they felt deserved defending.

The rejoined to Archibald is not those driven by conscious or desire for adventure you turned the French plains red, its not the Russian peasants whipped into graveyards by feudal masters who ultimately undermined themselves. Its Woodrow Wilson.

Wilson was himself an avowed pacifist. Wilson however bore two things that Archibald did not. Responsibility for a Nation and its people and a vision to manage and reduce war in line with his pacifistic views. Anyone who has studied the first world war has some idea of the carnage unleashed by industrialized warfare, a process so destructive that it mowed down and murdered the concept of morality for the wars unfortunate participants. Yet the war was fought, was being fought, and the world was going to change as a result. The question was how it was going to change? The Peace of Metternich and Bismarck that had kept Europe largely stable for a century was broken and was clearly not going to be repaired. What would replace it.

Wilson had an idea. The League of Nations. Collective Security. The removal of autocratic anachronisms and the establishment of free states. This is not a vision that could be influenced by sitting out the fight and then dictating terms to the long suffering. This was a vision that required sacrifice to establish (just as Metternich's system did before it). Provocation after provocation were ignored until it was too much, and Wilson sacrificed his own moral qualms for a shot at truly making the world a better place. He through the might of the United States into Europe and crushed all the weary combatants before him. We reversed a punishing peace. More importantly he created a new system of diplomacy in the League, and its successor the UN.

Though Wilson did not live to see the fruition of his dream, come to fruition it has. Man remains as fickle, irascible, and downright ornery as ever. But there exists now an organization built of men of all nations that works in all areas of the world, that administers to the sick, the tired, the hungry, the starving, the oppressed, those caught in disasters, to safeguard people in conflicts not its own. The UN itself seems to be starting far fewer conflicts than its member Nations, and the world is forever changed, and iIMHO very much for the better, because Woodrow Wilson.

Would the world have better place had Wilson sat on the sidelines as his personal conscience dictated? Perhaps.

There is nevertheless a measurable improvement in world still so often awash in conflict because a man of conscience who hated violence was driven at the last measure to use violence in a desperate bid to halt something monstrous and save millions of grieving families the loss of the innocent loved ones. That took an Army, and was something even a committed pacifist though worth fighting for. If only many more of us were as truly willing to fight to end war as Wilson? How much better would the world be?

Is Archibald correct? Or Wilson? It comes down to a judgement that defines not them, but us.

Blackflag: I think it was written in Hebrew and understood in the context and understanding Hebrew ideas on concept of 'killing'. What a word meant several thousand years ago is not the literal way we often demand it be taken today. I concede that several branches of Christianity disagree and believe it is literal in that sense.

All three monotheistic religions have almost identical views on the concept of killing.

The decision about pacifism and near pacifism seems a little opaque given the seeming ease with which humans are killing each other today. Often no good reason whatsoever. Our Nation has not been an innocent in current blood bath. Not by a long shot, and it should give us plenty of information about whether all this killing we've done has achieved much of anything at all.

Blackflag: Furthermore, define innocence

How do you think the Bible defines it?

INNOCENCE; INNOCENCY; INNOCENT

in'-o-sens, in'-o-sen-si, in'-o-sent (zakhu, niqqayon, chinnam, chaph, naqi; athoos the King James Version and the American Standard Revised Version have innocency in Gen 20:5; Ps 26:6; 73:13; Dan 6:22; Hos 8:5. In Daniel the Hebrew is zakhu, and the innocence expressed is the absence of the guilt of disloyalty to God. In all the other places the Hebrew is niqqayon, and the innocence expressed is the absence of pollution, Hosea having reference to the pollution of idolatry, and the other passages presenting the cleansing under the figure of washing hands. the King James Version has innocent not fewer than 40 times. In one place (1 Ki 2:31) the Hebrew is chinnam, meaning "undeserved," or "without cause," and, accordingly, the American Standard Revised Version, instead of "innocent blood .... shed," has "blood .... shed without cause." In another place (Job 33:9) the Hebrew is chaph, meaning "scraped," or "polished," therefore "clean," and refers to moral purity. In all the other places the Hebrew is naqi, or its cognates, and the idea is doubtless the absence of pollution. In more than half the passages "innocent" is connected with blood, as "blood of the innocent," or simply "innocent blood." In some places there is the idea of the Divine acquittal, or forgiveness, as in Job 9:28: "I know that thou wilt not hold me innocent" (compare Job 10:14, where the same Hebrew word is used). The New Testament has "innocent" twice in connection with blood--"innocent blood," and "innocent of the blood" (Mt 27:4,24).

gree0232: So you believe the word killing is metaphorical? In what way?

gree0232: I think Wilson well illustrates the moral dilemma. People did go to that specific war literally believing it would be "the war to end all wars". Wilson took it one step further - he imprisoned anybody who was opposed to the war. Was the US entry into the war really the last resort? Was Wilson's particular approach of forcing it on people via conscription right? To both questions I'd have to say, probably not. But Wilson more than pretty much any other major world leader genuinely believed, in some weird way, that the war would create a lasting peace - with the league of nations being the outcome of that.

A good contrast is Roosevelt, because Roosevelt refused to declare war. It was only after Pearl Harbor that Roosevelt struck back. The reason people don't praise him as much as Wilson is because he didn't win his war without dropping two giant bombs on Japan, and more rarely, because he put certain ethnic groups into labor camps (Wilson had additionally actually done something similar to this, jailing for example German nationals in the US even if they had US citizenship). Sure, the US was giving aid like crazy to the allies, so it was always clear whose side they were on. But there's much to be admired in not fighting - and in quietly holding out hope that somehow, a peace can still be achieved (even though he was already planning for an inevitable-seeming war).

admin: I believe it could of worked, provided the circumstances didn't result in Germany being screwed up the ass, and the terrible organization of the League of Nations being successful. It wasn't war that Wilson thought would bring peace. It was the absence of war that Wilson believed could lead to peace. Or in other words, Wilson did not believe the Great War itself would be so terrible it would end war, but his subsequent 14 point plan. Unfortunately not a single nation really held up to the ideals of Wilson's plan. Colonial powers such as Russia and Britain struggled loosening control over their former empires, and the blame game Europe played after WW1 tore itself apart. I believe war will end when every ideology, religion, and ethnicity is tolerated under its own banner. Wilson, like gree0232, attempted to empower peace through final confrontation. Where I agree with you, is that it really just keeps the wheel turning. If people think we need to fight the violence out of our systems, they're a tad bit disillusioned, no offense.

Wilson did not actually jail German nationals though. The Federal Bureau of Investigation, directed outside of Wilsons control, would interrogate questionable German Americans, and blacklist them from the community. Such as informing local officials to watch them, and informing employers not to hire them.

Blackflag: Not quite how I remember the history books but what I really object to is the notion that a lack of violence in the system is some sort of dream. Final confrontation is a proven failure at empowering peace. Only peace has ever empowered peace. The notion that through great war comes great peace is the one that seems the most illusionary to me.

admin: Exactly, peace WILL lead to peace. The point I was trying to prove was that Wilson believed in that. He did not think winning WW1 would establish peace, but his 14 points plan following WW1's closure.

admin: One delusion does occur though. People who thought communism could end by killing all the communists. People to this day who believe killing radical Muslims will stop radical Islam.

admin: Roosevelt died mid-war. He did, and could do, little to shape the post war realities. That fell to Truman, who also made the decision to drop the bombs too.

But therein lies a slightly different take on the use of violence: once wars begin - they are violent.

Is it better to drop a bomb and break the enemy immediately? Or send thousands, perhaps millions, to their deaths.

No on praises Truman for the decision he made. Few criticize him either. (Particularly as the long term effects of the nuclear bomb were poorly understood).

In Roosevelt's case, he went to war against the Nazi's and the Japanese, there was no great and compelling reason NOT to stop what was happening. If the Germans had won WWI, they likely would have behaved the same as the French. Had they won WWII? Different story altogether.

Blackflag: By Stag! | 3 hours ago
admin: Exactly, peace WILL lead to peace. The point I was trying to prove was that Wilson believed in that. He did not think winning WW1 would establish peace, but his 14 points plan following WW1's closure.

Conflict leads to conflict as well. From Peace arises Conflict. From Conflict arises Peace. What is at issue with Wilson was a genuine chance to change the game.

That contrasts with the other Roosevelt, who simply sought to make the US another Empire. Wilson saw a chance to fundamentally alter the rules of the game, and in many ways he has. Unlike the 19th Century when aggression from European powers caused the 'weaker' world to be raced for as exploited colonies ... the US advance into the Middle East and Russia's into Ukraine are met with ... derision. The world is far more stable in terms of the great game, and the underlying instability now are ... governance, economics, cultural.

The reversal of the great game lies in many respects to what Wilson did.

Some things are worth fighting for - like peace.

gree0232: Is it better to drop a bomb and break the enemy immediately? Or send thousands, perhaps millions, to their deaths
Or push for something short of unconditional surrender. War is resolved peacefully by treating all belligerent parties the same, regardless of what they did in the past.

gree0232: I disagree strongly with this: "From Peace arises Conflict. From Conflict arises Peace." I don't think either are true or supported by any of the analysis anyone on this thread has put up.

Conflict CAN arise in war.