Evangelicals for Peace Eye Return to Eden

Addie Darling
September 20, 2012

Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.  Matthew 5:9 KJV

For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same. For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. KJV Romans 13:-4

In the 4^th Century, St. Augustine lamented the existence of war, even as he elaborated upon the state’s justification in pursuing the use of force, in his tome City of God. Since then, there has been a seemingly constant dialogue within Christianity about the limits of using force and the necessity of violence for justice. Some have said that the Christian obligation to be peacemakers leads to pacifism and non-violence in the face of any and all threats, while others have taken St. Paul’s citation of the state’s ordained power to wield the sword as a justification for war- particularly in self-defense and protection of the defenseless. This discussion continued at last Friday’s conference “Evangelicals for Peace” at Georgetown University.

Sponsors included Sojourners, Evangelicals for Social Action, World Evangelical Alliance, and the New Evangelical Partnership for the Common Good. Speakers included Jim Wallis, David Gushee, Sami Awad and Glen Stassen.

The conference highlighted many current weaknesses both in Middle- East policy and in perceived Evangelical attitudes towards Muslims. Speakers cautioned against the sustained military-industrial complex because of its financial risk, and they advocated for faith-based diplomacy. However, the conference at times strayed towards an oversimplification of theological principles surrounding war and its justification and tended to neglect the role of prudence in policy. This overarching attitude of the “Evangelicals for Peace” conference presupposed that war is never the “answer” without considering deeply the theological and prudential processes that lead to such a conclusion. Such an oversight is an affront to the traditions of both pacifism and just war.

As noted in an article by Hearts and Mind Books, the conference featured speakers who have done truly incredible things. Among the professors and non-profit workers, and authors were individuals who had helped to mediate conflicts with local radical groups, leaders of Hezbollah, and even Muammar Gaddafi. There were also many salient points, such as one by Doug Johnson of the International Center for Religion and Diplomacy, calling for an awareness of religious and cultural norms to perform more effective diplomacy. Johnson explained the concept, which has been used by the military in conflicts such as Afghanistan, Kosovo, and Iraq:

“On a macro level it is incorporating religious considerations in the practice of international policy decisions, but in the micro level it means, sometimes, making religion a part of the solution to be contractible in individually-based conflicts”

Many of these valuable points were discussed through a frame of “just peacemaking” that, according to its creator, Glenn Stassen, seeks to unite both the pacifist and the “just warrior” by pursuing non-violent resolutions to conflicts. Gushee later noted that engagement in politics requires one commit to commitment to “self-defense and use of lethal force under certain specified conditions.” Just peacemaking’s weakness, however, is that it is unwilling to say “whether there is such a thing as ‘national security’ that can find a place within a Christian approach,” though it does not explicitly state that pacifism is preferable either.

While diplomacy can be more effective and better-utilized, and yes, as former South Carolina Governor David Beaseley, active with the National Prayer Breakfast, pointed out, “Saying no to war is not enough- we need to work for an alternative…[and] we need to identify an alternative for people to feel empowered.” But, save for distant and extreme historical situations that ended sometime around the Second World War, “war is not the answer” to threats any nation faces.  There is a naive presupposition that diplomacy can solve nearly all issues, making divisions between pacifists and just war theorists irrelevant.

This attitude places non-violence as a supreme Christian value, even though it refuses to assert pacifism outright. Instead, speakers opted to cast aspersions on those who believe force can be justified and used in a Christian manner. As Lisa Sharon Harper of Sojourners remarked in the first session:

“If you don’t believe that there is a better option without war, if you believe war is your best option, then you really have to reconsider if you believe in the transformative power of the resurrection because that was transformative and it came not because Jesus went and pounded anybody, it was because they pounded Him.”

While faith-based diplomacy, as well as other diplomatic tactics can be useful, it is shortsighted in that it ignores pragmatic concerns surrounding the limits of diplomacy as well as Christ’s own words, “And you shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake.” (Mark 13:13) Furthermore, this position demeans the Just War tradition, sloughing it off as a lack of faith.

Some speakers asserted that Christians who hold that force can be used by Christians may not be following Christ.  Other speakers held that even allegiance to Christ itself can be sacrificed for the sake of peace. Peacemaker and Palestinian activist Sami Awad spoke:

“How do you allow your identity to either be a catalyst for peace work or a block for peace work that you should be engaging in? If your identity as an American, if your identity as a Christian, if your identity representing any organization becomes a hindrance, a block, a way of looking negatively towards someone else, then I really, really challenge you to look into if you even want to continue with this identity.”

Although the conference did survey a variety of scholars and activists- including traditional pacifists and Just War theorists- the discussion at the Evangelicals for Peace conference raised more questions than it answered.  While giving lip service to the use of force, the conference decried the state’s exercise of power in the same breath; policy and pragmatism were practically ignored, and even allegiance to Christ was questioned if it threatened the narrowly defined ideology of peace the conference as a whole put forth.

As noted by Lisa Sharon Harper, “There were no swords in the Garden…there was no military.” However, ours is the City of Man, and try as we might, we Christians cannot transform the Earthly City into the Heavenly one by acting as if it is the City of God. We are stewards and need to work and await the New Jerusalem in the world as it is. As discussed by many of the panelists at Evangelicals for Peace, we should wait patiently as Christians first, and as Americans, British, or Palestinians second.

Nevertheless, we do so as Christians in a fallen world, where the lion may lay with the lamb temporarily, and where, at the very least, Christ the King –to whom our allegiance always lies- wages war upon the powers of evil.