Also, I think that, rather than rejecting pacifism altogether, these people need to interact with newer ideas coming from people like Rene Girard and Walter Wink, which provide a compelling renunciation of violence through different means than the traditional Anabaptists used.

Generally I think pacifists and just war theologians alike would do well to spill far less ink on the fine points of ethical theory, and more exposing the radical unjustness, by any just-war criteria ever proposed, of every modern war. In that spirit, I’m all in favor of Anabaptists signing on to a broad ecumenical statement that is really very strong in its unanimous condemnation of warfare.

At the same time, I’d rather if the Anabaptist representatives in these conversations came off a little bit less like star-struck kids who can’t get over the fact that they were invited to the party. Please, just sign the statement, acknowledge that we disagree with the majority about the ultimate legitimacy of violence, and get busy stopping the damn war already (since it appears we agree at least on that much). There’s really no need to get all floppy-apologetic and wax eloquent about “radical flexibility” and “principles” vs. the “complex world.”

That is some radically bad buzz wording.

Well spotted, Michael.