What is a Pacifist interpretation of the Cleansing of the Temple? 13 When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover, Jesus went up to Jerusalem. 14 In the temple courts he found people selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. 15 So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple courts, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. 16 To those who sold doves he said, “Get these out of here! Stop turning my Father’s house into a market!” 17 His disciples remembered that it is written: “Zeal for your house will consume me.” - John 2:13-17 NIV


This passage can easily be read to be a "violent" reaction from Jesus.  Leaving aside Niebuhr and pontifical statements against Christian Pacifism, how do Christian Pacifists interpret and apply this passage of scripture?
Christian Pacifism does not imply that one does not get angry.  It doesn't even mean that one doesn't stand up against oppression. It only suggests that one eschews violence and use the least force required to achieve justice.  


When the Pacifist Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King marched or conducted sit-ins, sometimes there were altercations.  People on both sides could get hurt - but comparatively speaking, the movement attempted to avoid killing and death.  
Quaker Pacifists would object to fighting in a war with guns, but they would often serve humanitarian causes supporting the side of right. Sometimes, this could even mean fisticuffs.
Winston Churchill, speaking of Chamberlin's capitulation to the Nazis is reported to have said: "One can always appease the lion by allowing oneself to be consumed."  Nonviolent pacifism seeks justice - not appeasement.


Other biblical justifications can be found here and here for example. Ted Grimsted, following  Yoder (probably the best person to consult in re: Christian Pacifism) admits that the definition is hard to pin down, but ultimately writes:


  “Pacifism” is the in-principled unwillingness to engage in lethal violence, including most obviously the unwillingness to participate in warfare.


Non-violent protest does not mean the absence of harm - it means the least amount of harm to effect justice.  

In Jesus' case, his father's house had become a den of thieves, a place in which people were abusing other people who had come to worship. Jesus used the least amount of violence needed to relieve suffering of others. There is no suggestion that anybody was killed or irreparably injured. Jesus just meted out the physical whoopin' that these money-changers had metaphorically been dishing out themselves.