Living Wittily

Wilfred Owen on the Defensible Case for Pacifism or the Indefensible Case for War?

Written by

admin

in

DSC00228Wilfred Owen remains one of the authentic human voices railing at catastrophe. The First World War was a cataclysm of military and political stupidity, pride, and power intoxication, whose cost was borne by millions of human beings, dehumanised into killing and being killed. This year of centenary remembrance, never celebration, brings Own back to mind. I remember reading Dulce et Decorum Est as a young teenager in Second Year and the rest of the day feeling the weight of sadness and bewilderment that poem so viscerally evokes – along with anger. In Seeing Salvation, by Neil MacGregor and Erika Langmuir, there is a thoughtful and unsettling chapter, 'From Vistory to Atonement'. It deals with the humiliation and suffering of Jesus, and the way First World War British soldiers responded to wayside crucifixes in Belgium. One of Owen's letters is quoted, and I hadn't come across this before:

Already I have comprehended a light which will never filter into the dogma of any national church: namely, that one of Christ's essential commands was, Passivity at any price! Suffer dishonour and disgrace, but never resort to arms. Be bullied, be outraged, be killed; but do not kill…

Christ is literally in no man's land. There men often hear his voice. Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life – for a friend.

Is it spoken in English only and French? I do not believe so.

These are words of uncompromising pacifism, written by one who had witnessed the alternative demonstrated with unprecedented ferocity. They are utterly unreasonable words, leaving the human community dangerously open to abuse, claiming the authority of the crucified God, and therefore decisively subversive of all our rationalisations, justifications and qualifications. Could I do what Owen says Christ demands? Could I deflect his challenge by appealing to his inventive exegesis? Or should I hear these words, read the Passion Story once more, and ask, what does it mean, really mean, to take up my cross daily, and follow faithfully after Christ?

The photo was taken in Aberdeen Botanic Gardens.

Comments

6 responses to “Wilfred Owen on the Defensible Case for Pacifism or the Indefensible Case for War?”

  1. summers-lad avatar
    summers-lad

    Like you I hadn’t heard that statement of Wilfred Owen’s, and it’s powerful. Passivity goes against the grain, but he’s certainly got a point.
    And yet – one of my abiding discoveries from reading Robin Jenkins’ “A Would-be Saint” (a book I read in a few days and chewed over for at least a month – it’s one of the most enjoyable and profound I’ve ever read) was that I’ve never known a pacifist who wasn’t a fighter. It was the book that made this clear to me, but it was my Dad (who was a conscientious objector in WW2) and the Quaker members of my family, who I was thinking of.
    I’ll not try to reconcile these statements. Better to leave them hanging for contemplation.

    Reply
  2. summers-lad avatar
    summers-lad

    Like you I hadn’t heard that statement of Wilfred Owen’s, and it’s powerful. Passivity goes against the grain, but he’s certainly got a point.
    And yet – one of my abiding discoveries from reading Robin Jenkins’ “A Would-be Saint” (a book I read in a few days and chewed over for at least a month – it’s one of the most enjoyable and profound I’ve ever read) was that I’ve never known a pacifist who wasn’t a fighter. It was the book that made this clear to me, but it was my Dad (who was a conscientious objector in WW2) and the Quaker members of my family, who I was thinking of.
    I’ll not try to reconcile these statements. Better to leave them hanging for contemplation.

    Reply
  3. summers-lad avatar
    summers-lad

    Like you I hadn’t heard that statement of Wilfred Owen’s, and it’s powerful. Passivity goes against the grain, but he’s certainly got a point.
    And yet – one of my abiding discoveries from reading Robin Jenkins’ “A Would-be Saint” (a book I read in a few days and chewed over for at least a month – it’s one of the most enjoyable and profound I’ve ever read) was that I’ve never known a pacifist who wasn’t a fighter. It was the book that made this clear to me, but it was my Dad (who was a conscientious objector in WW2) and the Quaker members of my family, who I was thinking of.
    I’ll not try to reconcile these statements. Better to leave them hanging for contemplation.

    Reply
  4. Stuart Blythe avatar
    Stuart Blythe

    It appears that Owen had a better grasp of something at the core of the gospel than many a established theologian. Whether it is possible to do is the honest question – yet the starting point for such reflection appears to be – it is somehow required.

    Reply
  5. Stuart Blythe avatar
    Stuart Blythe

    It appears that Owen had a better grasp of something at the core of the gospel than many a established theologian. Whether it is possible to do is the honest question – yet the starting point for such reflection appears to be – it is somehow required.

    Reply
  6. Stuart Blythe avatar
    Stuart Blythe

    It appears that Owen had a better grasp of something at the core of the gospel than many a established theologian. Whether it is possible to do is the honest question – yet the starting point for such reflection appears to be – it is somehow required.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

More posts