Tag Archives: peace

A country of peace

5 Replies

Costa Rica proclaims itself to be a country of peace. They abolished their army in 1948 and never looked back.

Costa Ricans will quickly tell you that their citizens are considered among the happiest in the world. This is backed up by a study by the New Economics Foundation from England, which put Costa Rica at the top of 151 nations based on progress and well-being. The Dutch-based World Database of Happiness has also put Costa Rica at the top.

With the oldest and most stable democracy in Latin America, Costa Rica has chosen to invest in health care and education, rather than militarization. They have also focused on environmental responsibility, seeking to have a net zero carbon footprint by 2021 (that is, focusing on renewable fuels so that no more carbon is produced than is “sequestered,” be it by plants or by other means).

It’s a beautiful country, with national parks making up over 30% of the country. They have access to oceans to the east and to the west. All of that makes it a prime tourist destination. In fact, many people from the States are choosing to retire in Costa Rica.

The country is far from perfect. Still, it’s interesting to see what can happen when a country dedicates itself to being a country of peace.

In the words of Nicholas Kristof:

Cross-country comparisons of happiness are controversial and uncertain. But what does seem quite clear is that Costa Rica’s national decision to invest in education rather than arms has paid rich dividends. Maybe the lesson for the United States is that we should devote fewer resources to shoring up foreign armies and more to bolstering schools both at home and abroad.

Photo by Pura Vida (who is obviously Costa Rican, since that is one of their traditional greetings: “Pure life!”)

Righting historical wrongs

4 Replies

As we look at questions of justice on a global scale, we quickly come to see that situations are very complex. For example, disputes over territorial claims aren’t easily resolved. (Anybody remember The Google Maps War?)

To illustrate, imagine a school where the teacher leaves the kids alone at lunch. A couple of the bullies go around and steal everybody’s lunches. The other kids being to fight back, and at that point a teacher comes in. The teacher tells everyone to sit down, stop fighting and eat what’s in front of them. The bullies generously offer to take the food they’ve stolen and sell it back to the other kids. Does anyone think this is just?

Now imagine the same school fifty years later. Every day, at lunch time, the teachers take the food away from certain kids and give it to others. “Your grandparents were bullies who took the food from these kids’ grandparents; now we’re righting that wrong.” Does anyone think this is just?

Silly examples, I know, but to some degree they show how ridiculous simple solutions to historical border disputes are. Look at the United States, for example. We have some land that belongs to us because of signed treaties, treaties that are now disputed by the countries that ceded us that land. (It’s funny to me how few people question why the United States has Guantanamo Bay, for example. It’s not like we’re on good terms with Cuba) The United States also owns land that shouldn’t belong to us because we gave it away under signed treaties. There can be no call for consistent application of “treaty law” without the United States losing a significant amount of land.

Argentina went to war with Great Britain over the Malvinas Islands. Those islands belonged to Argentina until they were taken in the mid-1800s. Britain argues that 150 years of ownership gives them the rights to that land. Argentina, not surprisingly, doesn’t agree and still doesn’t recognize Great Britain’s right to have those islands.

There are myriad stories around the world. If you go back far enough, your land probably belonged to someone else, even in ancient lands like Egypt and China. It’s not easy to sort through all of those claims.

And territorial disputes are merely one aspect of the world’s conflicts. If you live in a country that has benefitted from colonialism, wars, etc., you favor something like the first scenario, where everybody just keeps what they have right now. If you live in a country that isn’t at the top of the pecking order, or if you are one of the powerless people in a powerful nation, you’d like to see past injustices corrected.

An excellent article that looks at the effects that past colonialism still has in today’s world is Why Can’t People Feed Themselves? by Frances Moore Lappe and Joseph Collin. It’s worth a read.

Good men doing something

16 Replies

We’re taking time this week with a much-repeated phrase: “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”

In the context of conservative churches, this saying has become a dangerous inducement to abandon Christian principles in the name of “doing something” about evil. All of that love your enemy, don’t seek revenge, wait on the Lord stuff just doesn’t cut it. Christian men need to do something about evil. With their tongues. With their fists. With their guns. Otherwise… well, you know what the quote says.

And yes, the Bible says we are here to serve and not to lord it over others. Says that we are citizens of heaven and not of this world. But we have to do something about evil! With our tongues. With our e-mails. With our vote. Otherwise… well, you know what the quote says.

What about things like non-violent resistance? What about denouncing injustice from outside the system? What about overcoming evil with good rather than answering it with evil? What about prayer? Nope. Sorry. Not good enough.

What about having the patience to let the Lord act? What about fighting evil empires with the same weapons the early Christians did? No way! If you haven’t noticed, they got thrown to the lions.

When we lay aside the fruit of the Spirit and embrace the works of the flesh, what do we think is really going on? Does that somehow become spiritual when done for a “good reason”?

When good men are induced to fight evil with evil, the result is still evil, no matter the initial justification. When we throw away the Kingdom’s armor and take up the world’s weapons, the triumph belongs to the world and not the Kingdom.

All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to use evil’s tools to try and defeat it.

Photo by Konrad Baranski

Does Just War Theory bring peace or just war?

15 Replies

I saw a question asked online the other day which I found to be quite compelling. I read Rex Butts’ blog post on “The Evangelistic Scandal,” which led me to Scot McKnight’s discussion of Lee Camp’s new book.

The interview refers to “Just War Theory.” If you’re not familiar with Just War Theory, the idea is that there should be a set of criteria to apply to any conflict to determine if it is just or not. Proponents argue that Christians may participate in a just war, but not an unjust one. As far as I know, Augustine borrowed the principles from some Roman philosophers, then Thomas Aquinas further refined Augustine’s work. (Someone please correct that in the comments if my history is wrong; this is off the top of my head)

The basic principles of just war, as commonly expressed, are:

  • A just cause is basically defensive in posture, not aggressive.
  • The intent must also be just—the objectives must be peace and the protection of innocent lives.
  • War must be a matter of last resort when all attempts at reconciliation or peaceful resolution are exhausted.
  • A just war must be accompanied by a formal declaration by a properly constituted and authorized body.
  • The objectives must be limited. Unconditional surrender or total destruction are unjust means.
  • Military action must be proportionate both in the weaponry employed and the troops deployed.
  • Non-combatants must be protected and military operations must demonstrate the highest possible degree of discrimination.
  • Without a reasonable hope for success, no military action should be launched.

There is nothing set in stone as THE Just War Theory, but those principles are widely used.

Or are they? The question that was asked in the comments section of the McKnight article was this:

Has there ever been a war that Christians were considering entering into, but applying the criteria for “just war” talked them out of?

That’s a great question. I can’t think of an example. Can you? Has “Just War Theory” ever been used for anything other than justifying participation in conflict?

Does Just War Theory bring peace or just war?

Can we support those with whom we don’t agree?

5 Replies

Beheading of Anabaptist Martyrs (Rembrandt)

Goshen College has been in the news a lot this year. This small school in Indiana was founded by believers steeped in the Anabaptist tradition, specifically Amish and Mennonites.

In keeping with their beliefs in peacemaking, Goshen College did not play the national anthem at school activities. In 2010, school officials decided that as a gesture of hospitality toward visiting athletic teams, they would begin to play the anthem at sporting events.

Their was a strong outcry among their alumni, leading the administration to return to the policy their school had practiced for over 100 years. That’s when the national media jumped in, especially Fox News. Reports came out that the school had “banned” the national anthem, and patriots everywhere denounced this act. [Anabaptists have been persecuted for centuries because of their views. As someone said on Facebook, “during the Reformation, the one thing that Catholics, Lutherans, and Calvinists could all agree on is that Anabaptists ought to die.”]

I’m not surprised that groups like Fox News would jump on Goshen. What’s been sad to me is to see the Christians that have done the same. Even if we don’t agree with them, shouldn’t we support a school that makes an unpopular decision based on Christian principles? Someone who stands up for their convictions despite the ridicule of non-Christians?

[A sports writer in Oklahoma had an interesting take yesterday, not as a Christian, but as a citizen of the U.S. He wrote:

The decision brought home the true dichotomy in the debate of freedom of religious expression and paying homage to the nation that enables such freedoms.

Clearly, the school has the right to play or not play any song it wants and it would run counter to everything our many valiant, brave citizens and soldiers have given in the fight for freedom.

It would be ironic if a school were forced to play a song that celebrates the birth of a nation born out of the desire for freedom.

You can read his whole article here.]

Maybe I’m only saying that because I’m sympathetic to their position. (There’s a well-written explanation of one alumnus’ views in this article title “Why I Don’t Sing The Star-Spangled Banner“) So I’ll look for input from you. Should we support those who stand up for their convictions even when we don’t agree with them?

Let me point out, as the discussion begins, that Goshen only changed what the school does as an official organism. They did not ban the anthem, as has been wrongly reported in the press. They do not forbid other schools playing the anthem when Goshen is the visiting team. They don’t burn flags nor beat up soldiers. I feel that their stand is different from that of some who try to impose their views on others or flaunt their views in the face of others. Goshen’s decision affected what they did on their own campus.

Is this a time for Christians to stand united or are their bigger principles in play here?