Peace and Peacemaking
What Is Pacifism?
Pacifism is the principled rejection of violence as a means of resolving conflict. It is one of the most significant positions in religious ethics, rooted in teachings about the sanctity of life, the command to love others, and the belief that peace — rather than victory in war — is the true goal. Not all pacifists hold the same position, however, and it is important to distinguish between the two main forms.
Absolute pacifism holds that violence is always wrong, regardless of the circumstances. Absolute pacifists believe that no military objective, however worthy, justifies the taking of human life. This position is most strongly associated with the Quakers, who issued a famous declaration in 1660 stating that they would “utterly deny all outward wars and strife, and fightings with outward weapons, for any end, or under any pretence whatsoever.” This Quaker Declaration of 1660 remains one of the clearest statements of absolute pacifism in religious history.
Conditional pacifism accepts that violence is deeply undesirable and should be avoided, but allows that in extreme situations — for example, stopping genocide or defending the innocent — force may be the lesser evil. Many mainstream Christians occupy this position: they believe war is tragic and should be a last resort, but do not rule it out absolutely. The distinction between absolute and conditional pacifism is important for exam questions asking you to compare different religious attitudes to violence.
Pacifism in the Sermon on the Mount
The Sermon on the Mount contains some of the most demanding ethical teachings in Christianity and is a cornerstone for Christian pacifists. In Matthew 5:38–42, Jesus explicitly challenges the ancient principle of “an eye for an eye”: “But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.” This teaching on turning the other cheek is not generally read as passive submission to abuse; rather, it is interpreted as a form of dignified, non-violent resistance that refuses to repay violence with violence.
Matthew 5:43–44 extends this further: “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbour and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.” For many Christians, this command to love enemies is the foundation of pacifism — if you genuinely love someone, you cannot wish harm on them, even if they are doing you harm.
The Quaker Declaration of 1660 states that Quakers “utterly deny all outward wars and strife, and fightings with outward weapons, for any end, or under any pretence whatsoever.” It is the classic expression of absolute pacifism in English religious history and is directly cited in the specification for this topic.
Non-Violent Action: Key Figures
Non-violent action is the active use of peaceful methods to resist injustice and work for change. It is different from passivity — it involves deliberate, sustained effort to challenge unjust systems without employing violence. Three figures are central to this tradition in the 20th century:
Mahatma Gandhi developed the philosophy of satyagraha (truth-force or soul-force) in South Africa and India. He led mass campaigns of civil disobedience — strikes, boycotts and peaceful marches — against British colonial rule. Gandhi drew on Hindu teachings about ahimsa (non-violence) as well as on Jesus’s Sermon on the Mount. He demonstrated that non-violent resistance could achieve major political goals and inspire movements worldwide.
Martin Luther King Jr led the American civil rights movement in the 1950s and 1960s. A Baptist minister, King was deeply influenced by both Gandhi’s methods and by Jesus’s teaching to love enemies. He organised bus boycotts, sit-ins and marches to challenge racial segregation, explicitly rejecting violence even when attacked. His famous “Letter from Birmingham Jail” argues that non-violent direct action forces the community to confront its injustice and creates a creative tension that leads to negotiation and change.
Desmond Tutu, an Anglican Archbishop in South Africa, used his faith to oppose apartheid and later to chair the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Like King, Tutu argued that Christian love required active opposition to injustice — but without hatred for the oppressor. He stressed that the goal was not to defeat enemies but to transform them and restore community.
Gandhi (Hindu-inspired ahimsa), Martin Luther King Jr (Baptist Christian, love of enemies) and Desmond Tutu (Anglican Christian, reconciliation) are the three named individuals in the specification for this lesson. Each rooted their non-violent activism in religious conviction, not merely political strategy.
Organisations Working for Peace
Religious and ethical organisations have also worked collectively for peace. The CCND — more commonly known as CND (Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament) — was founded in Britain in 1957 and draws support from religious believers as well as secular humanists. It argues that nuclear weapons can never be morally justified and campaigns for multilateral disarmament. Many faith communities, including Quakers and several Catholic organisations, have supported CND campaigns on the grounds that nuclear weapons are incompatible with any just war criteria.
Beyond formal organisations, religious communities work for peace in many everyday ways: through prayer for peace, through reconciliation programmes between conflicting groups, through education about the causes of violence, and through practical aid to communities torn apart by conflict. Whether working for peace should be the most important activity for believers is itself a matter of theological debate: some Christians argue that evangelism (spreading the gospel) is the primary calling; others argue that working for justice and peace is central to following Jesus.
Critics of pacifism argue that it can be ineffective or even irresponsible. If an aggressor is not deterred by peaceful protest, non-violent resistance may simply allow injustice to continue unchallenged. The philosopher Reinhold Niebuhr argued that Christians who refuse all force are failing their responsibility to protect the innocent. He called this position “irresponsible perfectionism.” However, defenders of pacifism argue that violence often escalates conflict rather than resolving it, that it corrupts those who use it, and that non-violent methods — as Gandhi and King demonstrated — can achieve profound social change. They also argue that Christian ethics requires living out the Kingdom of God’s values now, even if it appears impractical.