Tag Archives: peace

Shalom Builders

Yesterday, I was pointing out that “peace” in the Bible has a broader range of meanings than merely the absence of conflict. This is especially true in Hebrew. We have to feel that the Hebrew meaning influenced the New Testament writers; this is especially true in the gospel sayings, since Jesus spoke Aramaic, not Greek.
So think about some of the parallel ideas with the word peace:

Fulfillment
Wholeness
Prosperity
Well-being

If we are peacemakers, we are actively working to create these things. We can see some of this in Jeremiah’s words for the exiles in Babylon:

“Build houses and live in them; plant gardens and eat their produce. Take wives and have sons and daughters; take wives for your sons, and give your daughters in marriage, that they may bear sons and daughters; multiply there, and do not decrease. But seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the LORD on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare.” (Jeremiah 29:5–7)

The word which the ESV translates as “welfare” is the word “shalom” — peace. The NIV inserts the word prosperity (“seek the peace and prosperity”), trying to convey the idea that peace is much more than absence of war.

As exiles, as strangers and aliens, we live here in Babylonia seeking to be shalom builders, seeking to create good and not ill, seeking to build and not destroy, working for all that is life and opposing all that is death.

As Rex pointed out in a comment yesterday, that’s a far cry from a passive lifestyle. Yet it’s a life of waging 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?

The value of human life

cemeteryScenario 1: “Q: What’s sandy all over and glows in the dark? A: Iran, if they harm even one of the hostages.” It was 1980. Iran was holding American citizens hostage. Americans! We were high school seniors. Tough guys. If there were a war, we’d be the ones drafted. We made jokes about the possibility of dropping nuclear weapons on Iran and killing millions of people.

Scenario 2: It was ACU basketball’s finest hour. Norman Archibald announced the games in the style of a big-time college announcer. Moody Coliseum would be rocking, especially Section F. The fans in Section F were there to see basketball, but they were especially there to have a good time. They had a wide repertoire of antics: pulling out newspapers to read while opposing players shot free throws, jingling their keys and chanting “Go start the bus!” when ACU was about to win, taunting opposing players when they committed fouls. One favorite was the ceremonial hanging of the referee: raising a doll dressed like an official with a noose around his neck. I found it great fun, until the day my friend Joel Solliday shared his concern: “They’re representing the taking of a human life!

Scenario 3: Pew Research Report on their Values Survey (2007):

Nearly a quarter of American adults (23%) say they mostly (14%) or completely (9%) agree that American lives are worth more than the lives of people in other countries according to the most recent Pew Social Values Survey; those most likely to take this view include white men (30%), persons ages 18-29 (29%) and self-identified conservative Republicans (28%).

Scenario 4: Mary Elizabeth Williams writes about abortion:

All life is not equal. That’s a difficult thing for liberals like me to talk about, lest we wind up looking like death-panel-loving, kill-your-grandma-and-your-precious-baby storm troopers. Yet a fetus can be a human life without having the same rights as the woman in whose body it resides. She’s the boss. Her life and what is right for her circumstances and her health should automatically trump the rights of the non-autonomous entity inside of her. Always.

The basic problem behind many of today’s hot-button issues is that we don’t value human life.

Scenario 5:

“For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die— but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life.” (Romans 5:6–10)

photo from Morguefile.com