Category Archives: peace

Waging Peace

In English, the word “peace” conjures up a passive picture, one showing an absence of civil disturbance or hostilities, or a personality free from internal and external strife. The biblical concept of peace is larger than that and rests heavily on the Hebrew root slm, which means “to be complete” or “to be sound.” The verb conveys both a dynamic and a static meaning”to be complete or whole” or “to live well.” The noun had many nuances, but can be grouped into four categories: (1) salom [l’v] as wholeness of life or body (i.e., health); (2) salom [l’v] as right relationship or harmony between two parties or people, often established by a covenant (see “covenant of peace” in Num 25:12-13 ; Isa 54:10 ; Ezek 34:25-26 ) and, when related to Yahweh, the covenant was renewed or maintained with a “peace offering”; (3) salom [l’v] as prosperity, success, or fulfillment (see Lev 26:3-9 ); and (4) salom [l’v] as victory over one’s enemies or absence of war. Salom [l’v] was used in both greetings and farewells. It was meant to act as a blessing on the one to whom it was spoken: “May your life be filled with health, prosperity, and victory.” As an adjective, it expressed completeness and safety. In the New Testament, the Greek word eirene [eijrhvnh] is the word most often translated by the word “peace.” Although there is some overlap in their meanings, the Hebrew word salom [l’v] is broader in its usage, and, in fact, has greatly influenced the New Testament’s use of eirene [eijrhvnh].

Baker’s Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology

OK, it’s one of those things that makes everyone around me say, “Really? You never realized that?” But I’ll go ahead and admit it: I’ve been wrong about peace.

That is, my image of peace has been way too limited, even when I knew what is quoted above, that the biblical concept of peace goes beyond absence of conflict.

But I hadn’t applied that thought, for example, to Jesus’ statement “Blessed are the peacemakers….” I was merely thinking of stopping war and stopping fights between people, a concept that is certainly included. But when you think about the fuller meaning of “peace” in the Bible, suddenly Jesus’ words take on a whole new dynamic. It’s actively creating something, not merely trying to stop something.

Help me flesh out this new understanding. What does “peacemaking” look like in light of the Bible’s use of the word?

Talking about values

Germania--War and PeaceIn 2007, the Pew Research Center released the results of a survey about “Trends in Political Values and Core Attitudes.” It’s a topic they regularly research.

There are encouraging findings, like:

About eight- in-ten Americans say they have no doubt that God exists, that prayer is an important part of their lives, and that “we will all be called before God at the Judgment Day to answer for our sins.”

And I’m encouraged by the growing realization in this country that war does not create peace:

In the summer of 2002, less than a year after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, 62% agreed with this statement: “The best way to ensure peace is through military strength.” But a year later, that number had fallen by nine points, to 53%. In the current survey, 49% say they think that maintaining military strength is the best way to ensure peace – the lowest percentage in the 20- year history of Pew values surveys.

Vengeance is also becoming less popular:

In 2002, with memories of 9/11 still fresh, 61% of Americans agreed with the statement: “It is my belief that we should get even with any country that tries to take advantage of the United States.” That marked a 19-point increase from 1999, and was the highest percentage agreeing with this sentiment in the 20-year history of the values survey.
But this proved to be a temporary rise in the public’s desire to “get even” with countries that have taken advantage of the U.S. Just a year later, 48% supported the idea of getting revenge against adversaries, and in the current survey it has declined to 40% – the lowest number in favor of getting even against other countries in 20 years.

Here’s the one that really worries me:

Overall, 50% agree with the statement: “We should all be willing to fight for our country, whether it is right or wrong”; 45% disagree with this statement. In values surveys since 1994, roughly half of the public has expressed agreement that one has an obligation to fight for his or her country whether it is right or wrong.
Republicans and Democrats differ in their views about whether a person has an obligation to fight for the U.S., even when it is wrong: Most Republicans (63%) believe people have such an obligation while most Democrats (52%) disagree. Independents are fairly evenly divided, with half agreeing that people have a duty to fight for the U.S. whether it is right or wrong.

If I could somehow believe that these were non-Christians holding that attitude, I could feel more at ease. But these values held true in large numbers with whites (53%); the white Republican base at that time was strongly Evangelical. Despite that fact, country took precedence over justice. You fight for your country, right or wrong.

Or am I reading that wrong? I haven’t yet found the complete data that might have that info broken down according to religious views. But don’t you agree that, if that really does reflect the outlook of many churchgoers across the country, we have a serious problem in our pews?

Survey results can be found here

Addendum: Found the 2012 results on the same issue:

About half of the public (51%) says that “we all should be willing to fight for our country, whether it is right or wrong,” 43% disagree. Opinions on this measure have fluctuated only modestly over the past 25 years. In the first political values survey in 1987, 54% said people should be willing to fight for this country, right or wrong, while 40% disagreed.
Republicans (58%) are more likely than Democrats or independents (49% each) to say that everyone should be willing to fight for the U.S., regardless of the circumstances. Among Democrats, a majority of conservatives and moderates (55%) say everyone should be willing to fight for this country, right or wrong. A majority of liberal Democrats disagree (56%).

What about the second mile?

Bloch's Sermon on the MountIn discussing the issues of violence and non-violence, pacifism and non-pacifism, something comes up at times that I think needs to be re-examined. I’ve heard it said that Jesus’ comments about non-resistance to evildoers only applied to religious persecution.

In mulling this over and weighing it out, a thought kept coming to mind: what about the second mile? You know the teaching:

If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles.

It’s in the context of Jesus’ reframing the concept of vengeance (“eye for eye, tooth for tooth”), two phrases after the command to turn the other cheek. And it’s definitely not about religious persecution. There’s no evidence that the concept of Roman soldiers forcing non-Romans to carry their gear was a religious oppression. It was more akin to the quartering that the British Empire practiced prior to the American Revolution.

Jesus’ answer is that such oppression is not to be resisted.

Now I know that there are other ways of teaching that the Sermon of the Mount doesn’t apply to us. We’ve looked at those in a series on this blog. If you’d like to restate those views, fine. I don’t expect to spend a lot of time replying to such comments.

For those that think that Matthew recorded Jesus’ teachings for the edification of Jesus’ church, I’d like to discuss this point: doesn’t the teaching about the second mile move the conversation away from the subject of religious persecution?

No more speaking up for evil

KONICA MINOLTA DIGITAL CAMERAOK, I want to go back to a recurring theme on this blog, the idea of speaking to the political system from outside the system. I admittedly wrestle with terminology a bit, for I tend to think of politics in terms of partisan struggles, while others think that anything affecting the public (the polis) is politics.

What I’m talking about is Christians refusing to align themselves with human groups, be they liberal or conservative, Republican or Democratic. At some point, those groups begin to exist with the aim of winning elections and guaranteeing their continued existence. Ideas begin to be judged more in terms of practicality, feasibility, and electability, rather than in terms of right and wrong.

So we Christians speak out on the issues, but not with the same talking points that our non-Christian friends use. If your political views line up with a non-believer’s political views, your views probably aren’t Christian. It’s as simple as that.

One area where I’d like to see Christians take a firm stand these days is on the topic of life. We need to be pro-life, far beyond what those who merely oppose abortion are. We need to be anti-death. We need to stop saying, “Well, this form of killing is worse than that form of killing, so I’ll oppose it.” I read a Christian blogger who said that the conservatives are wrong for supporting overseas wars, while liberals are wrong for supporting abortion, but he’d support the conservatives because of “body count.”

No! When we choose the lesser of two evils, we are still choosing evil.

Let’s be known for saying, “I don’t care who gets elected. I don’t care if this idea has public palatability. I’m going to speak the truth.” Let’s be known as the people who won’t compromise their beliefs just to be able to identify themselves with a popular movement. Let’s be known as those who unwaveringly seek the truth. (imperfectly, yes, but relentlessly)

Let’s stand up for life. From womb to the tomb, as they say. We oppose abortion. We oppose war. We oppose humans causing the death of other humans.

Once we start speaking out against ALL killing, people will realize that we aren’t just another partisan voice in the political maelstrom. As long as we choose the lessor of evils, no one will believe that we are really speaking out for good.

 

photo from my old friend, MorgueFile.com

Why not try God’s way

We’ve seen that human solutions are never as good as divine ones. We’ve seen that evil rulers and nations are sometimes agents of God to bring about a greater good. We’ve seen that God’s timetable for dealing with evil often spans decades and centuries.

So let’s tie some of this together. What are the sorts of things that make us forego “Sermon on the Mount” responses in favor of violent responses? It’s usually things like:

  • Said dictator/country/terrorist is so evil that we must act
  • Said situation is so urgent that we must act
  • Military action will solve this situation permanently

Problem is, none of that squares with what we see in the Bible. God and God alone takes care of evil. He often uses other evil people to do it. (which is something to consider when we choose to step into that role!)

God takes care of things on his own time. Part of faith is being willing to wait on the Lord, rather than rush ahead to human solutions.

And our solutions are never as good as God’s solutions. Our wars “solve” one problem and create a new one. World War II was won by working with Communist leaders, which led to the Cold War. The Cold War was fought by arming Muslim extremists against the Soviets, which led to Al Qaida and other terrorist groups. And so on.

What if Christians tried doing things God’s way instead of man’s way? It’s at least worth a try.

Photo from MorgueFile.com