Book
Robert W. Brimlow, What About Hitler? Wrestling with Jesus’ Call to Nonviolence in an Evil World. Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2006.
Reviewer
Ronald J. Sider, Professor of Theology, Holistic Ministry and Public Policy, Palmer Theological Seminary, Eastern University, Wynnewood, PA
In What About Hitler? Robert Brimlow devotes considerable time to a critique of the Just War tradition. He wrestles vigorously with George Orwell’s critique of pacifism; he argues pointedly that the Christian’s first concern must be to obey Jesus, not to escape death or be successful according to some short-term definition. And he points out effectively that rejecting killing makes sense only if it is part of a personal and communal lifestyle committed to peacemaking.
There is a good deal in this book that is helpful. Brimlow brings a philosopher’s sharp mind to his extensive critique of the Just War tradition. I will not try to decide here whether his critique is finally successful, but his sophisticated objections to central arguments of important Just War advocates (St. Augustine, Michael Walzer, Jean Bethke Elshtain) offer challenges that no Just War advocate should ignore. “Just war theory contradicts itself in that it sanctions the killing of innocents, which it at the same time prohibits. In addition, just war theory can also be used effectively to justify all wars” (105).
Brimlow is surely right that pacifism is impossible unless it is rooted in Christian community and prayer, and that it has no integrity unless it is part of a personal and communal lifestyle that not only rejects violence but actively engages in works of compassion and mercy toward the poor and neglected.
That said, I must confess that I found the book inadequate, disappointing, and occasionally annoying. The rambling Scriptural meditations at the beginning of each chapter were not very helpful, at least not for me. The argument that Just War theory validates Osama bin Laden as much as it does military resistance to terrorism was not convincing. Equally unsatisfactory was Brimlow’s lengthy argument (139-46) that Jesus was a failure.
Even his final chapter arguing for the importance of a personal and communal lifestyle of peacemaking was inadequate. Jesus called for works of mercy – feeding the hungry, caring for the homeless and naked, giving alms to the poor. That is all good and true.
But what about going beyond charity to understanding the structural causes of poverty and injustice and working vigorously to overcome institutional injustice? What about activist kinds of peacemaking – whether Victim-Offender Reconciliation Programs, sophisticated mediation efforts bringing together warring parties, or Christian Peacemaker Teams?
Most important, Brimlow’s answer to the basic question, “What About Hitler?” is woefully inadequate. He opens Chapter 7 (“The Christian Response”) with the comment that “it is time for me to respond to the Hitler question.” His answer takes three paragraphs. Just one page. He had already said near the beginning that his answer to this question is absurd (10). I think that answer is fundamentally inadequate.
It is certainly true that the Christian pacifist believes that she must follow Jesus, even when this leads to death. Brimlow makes the point very well. If Jesus is God become flesh, if God raised Jesus from the dead on the third day, then it simply will not do to say, “Sorry, Jesus, your ideas do not work in a world of Hitlers and Osama bin Ladens.”
We must follow Jesus even when that means death. But there is a lot more to be said to make this position less implausible than Brimlow does. It is wrong and misleading to label it “absurd.”
If Jesus is the Incarnate God who announced the inauguration of the Messianic kingdom of peace and justice, called his disciples to start living in that kingdom now, and promised to return to complete the victory over evil, then it makes sense to obey his call to nonviolence now, even when Hitlers still stalk the earth. This book does not offer a convincing answer to the question it raises.