I am not one to often write about secular politics. In the end, I think national politics pales in comparison to the importance of the politics of Jesus and the “political” work of the church through its witness to the Way of Christ. In the case of last week’s Nobel Peace Prize award and the ensuing debate, however, I cannot refrain from thinking about the implications of this for the church and our partnership in God’s mission.
Like many people across the nation and world, I was shocked to hear on Friday that President Obama had won the Nobel Peace prize. Even more so, I was greatly disappointed. For my entire life, the Nobel Peace Prize has symbolized for me one of a few secular recognitions of Gospel work. God’s mission of redemption and reconciliation is grounded and consummated in the ultimate shalom, or peace, of the world. We participate in God’s mission by working for peace and reconciliation in the world, spreading the Kingdom of God everywhere we go. And while entirely secularized – even by the mere notion of awarding peacemaking – the Nobel seemed to embody the values of the Kingdom and advocate for the great work we are called to be a part of through Christ. It was an award given to Martin Luther King, Jr. and Desmond Tutu, two people among other winners who exemplified the work of non-violence and reconciliation with enemies.
Perhaps it was my own naiveté to think that such an award would esteem and embody the values of Christ, but this event is emblematic of how vast the gap has grown between the world’s and Christ’s definitions of peace. There is a great difference between what the world means when it says PEACE and what Christ taught and embodied in his life and death. What do we understand peace and peacemaking to be when we grant the world’s highest honor of peace to someone who is fighting two wars, escalating violence in one of the wars by sending more troops, and failing to close down an American torture camp?
Yes, I understand the award was given for Obama’s hopeful and inspiring efforts for international diplomacy, cooperation, and nuclear disarmament. We must all acknowledge and applaud the general change in attitude and openness with the rest of the world that has come with this new administration. What I cannot acknowledge, however, is any significant movement toward actual non-violent peace. Peace does not come through hopeful rhetoric and does not come – as seems the case with both Bush and Obama – through intensified violence, in Iraq or Afghanistan. I was taken aback during Obama’s campaign debates with his blatant goal of killing Osama bin Laden. I am not sure how a political goal of killing another human being or of waging war on countries with assured “collateral” civilian loss entails the work of peace. Peace can never come via more violence, and this may be the great dividing line between the “peace” of the world and the peace of Christ.
Now I am not a fundamentalist or conservative spewing hate at Obama for the sake of political expediency. I do not even understand the conservative uproar – most conservatives seem perfectly fine with violence and death for the sake of national security or the expansion of freedom. In fact, no one can place blame on Obama for winning the award – he responded with appropriate humility, even saying that it didn’t “feel right” to win. This has nothing to do with Obama himself. It only shows how far the world has drifted from Christ’s vision and mission of peace.
As the church it is our job to teach the world what peace means, and it seems we are struggling in this task. Peace is not assassinating dictators or terrorists. It is not allowing torture. It is not increasing military efforts and watching American soldiers, as well as human beings in other countries – enemy or civilian – die at our hands. Christ tells us that peace means turning the other cheek when we are struck; going the extra mile when coerced; walking the self-emptying Way of the cross and not the way of vengeance, retaliation, or even national security. It means actually making peace with enemies through love, and not just talking about it.
As the church, we should be saddened by a world that can so easily separate notions of peace from the work of non-violence. We should be angered at a world that understands the peacemaking of MLK, Tutu, and Obama in the same light. We should be outraged at the world’s understanding of peace, and yet inspired to action. We should show the world what peace means by refusing to join military efforts that send us overseas to kill fellow humans created in God’s image, by proclaiming that violence of any kind is a threat to peace, and by supporting Christian efforts at peacemaking that are already underway.
Ultimately peace is at the heart of Christ’s mission and God’s vision for the world. It is not easy work, but we should not sell ourselves short or allow the world to dictate our definition of peace. No longer can we count on the world to recognize the distinctiveness of our mission – this is evident in Friday’s Nobel announcement. Instead, we must support each other, seek creative outlets, and work and live in the world in a way that makes God’s vision of shalom a reality.
It’s worth noting that even theologically moderate and progressive Christians differ on their understanding of peace as defined by Christ.
I believe that you previously described yourself as a pacifist – a position that most Christians do not share. One need not be a pacifist in order to be a peacemaker. I believe that some wars are just; some are necessary. That belief does not make me less of a peacemaker than the pacifist. Regarding Obama’s desire to kill Osama bin Laden, the example of Dietrich Bonhoeffer comes to mind.
I’m not in favor of a troop surge in Afghanistan. However, if all American troops left Afghanistan tomorrow, what do you think would happen to the region? Violence would surely ensue and America would bear some degree of responsibility for that violence. It’s almost a Lose-Lose situation with no clear solution.
We also should remember that there are at least two different types of peace: negative peace and positive peace. As Dr. King himself once noted, peace “is not merely the absence of some negative force – war tension, confusion, but it is the presence of some positive force – justice, goodwill, the power of the kingdom of God.” You seem to be operating from the more limited definition of peace which King described as negative peace.
While I believe that awarding Obama the Nobel Prize was certainly premature, I do recognize that positive peace is what Obama hopes to achieve through various reforms and new policies.
Also, I’m of the opinion that serving one’s country in the military is indeed honorable. Do you disagree?
I applaud and agree with Big Daddy Weave. Well said, and thank you for affirming those of us who serve in the military. For those blog readers who don’t know this already: just as you can be a peacemaker without being a pacifist, you can serve in uniform without being a warrior. The US military includes noncombatants (and even “limited conscientious objectors” philosophically opposed to war) whose job is to care for troops, not kill the enemy.
Thank you, Kris, for articulating a vision for peace that represents, I believe, God’s ideal for humanity, particularly the Church (local and universal), one that challenges us to think deeper about our 21st century notions of peace in a culture, particularly an American one, that taints and skews what Jesus embodies regularly.
I think you are missing the point, though, Big Daddy, particularly because you operate, or so it seems, in a mindset of “what is” rather than “what should be/what will be.” You say some wars are just, some even necessary; your ability to say this rest on the “what is” – the world is bad, people are bad, therefore killing/violence (the means) is necessary
(or justifiable, you say) to bring about a better end (peace?). Christ, in his ministry, though, continuously pushes us to live into the “what should be” – to forgive because we are forgiven; to reconcile because we are reconciled; to resist retaliation, just as Christ (peacefully) did, a decision that led him to death on a cross. The “what is” is easy. It’s living into the “what should be/what will be,” peace without violence, for instance, that’s incredibly difficult and completely irrational, but the last time I checked Jesus didn’t ask us to do what was easy or rational. Sometime the narrow road to God just won’t make sense.
Not to be silly, Big Daddy, but I’d like to pose a question(s) for you in response to whether it’s honorable for one to serve in the military: Is it faithful (note: I didn’t say right or wrong, though tempted) for a Christian to serve in the military, to take an oath that requires one, and I quote, “to bear true faith and allegiance” and to “obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over” them? If so, what happens, then, when Commander Obama orders the killing of an enemy (or innocent civilians), despite the fact King Jesus tells us [Christians] to love that enemy like we love ourselves? Is there not a conflict of interest? And if so, is it then safe to say that to be an honorable soldier requires one to be less faithful to Christ’s way? Can one love and be peaceful like Jesus yet participate in acts of violence that only bring about peace for one side, the dominant party, at the same time? If your answer is yes, is it okay to assume that somehow your (or our) American upbringing has shaped (or trumped) your (or, again, our) interpretation and understanding of Jesus?
Again, thank you, Kris, for reminding us that God calls us to teach the world what peace is, to be imaginative and, yes, God forbid, idealistic, bringing heaven to earth – attempting to live into the eschaton now, not later. It seems we can only do what you argue, though, if we start thinking and living differently than the world we see and participate in daily. Our witness may depend on it. Real peace depends on it.
A.J.,
You’ve made a few unjustified assumptions in your comment.
I stated that *some* wars ARE just and ARE necessary not because of a supposed “what is” mindset but because I believe – as a follower of Christ – that some wars SHOULD BE and MUST BE justified and waged.
Could we really describe the United States as a “nation of peace” had the U.S. twiddled its thumbs while other nations were involved in a Second World War? Where’s the compassion and peace in allowing a brutal regime to gas and execute millions of individuals made in the image of God?
Seriously. What’s the pacifist response to real (not imagined) evil as with Hitler and Nazi Germany?
The convictions expressed by AJ and Kris here at the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship blog are indeed thoroughly Anabaptist. The convictions expressed by myself and J.T. Moger are certainly not Anabaptist and in agreement with the prevailing historic Baptist perspective. Having acknowledged these differences, getting into a discussion of which position is more Biblical, which position is more Christlike would be rather fruitless.
So, while I do respect your right to hold those convictions, I’m quite convinced that the absolutist position of pacifism is at times quite irresponsible.
I’m also struck by the anti-military tone expressed here. I’ve seen other pacifists approach this issue (Ron Sider for example) in a much more military-friendly way.
Finally, it’s worth reemphasizing that the vision of [negative] peace put forth by Kris is quite limiting as most peace scholars would agree. Where’s the more optimistic, vision of [positive] peace? How can you judge the contributions (or potential contributions) of President Obama to peace without taking into consideration his efforts on behalf of positive peace? A vision of peace that isn’t so limiting would acknowledge that Obama’s economic policies and health care reform proposals in these first 9 months of his Presidency have positive peace as the end goal. Peace isn’t simply the absence of war and violence…
Aaron,
Thanks for your responses. I am glad that I can always count on you to help produce fruitful discussion, even if we do not seem to often agree. I want to respond to a few points you raised in your two posts.
1)You said, “Dr. King himself once noted, peace ‘is not merely the absence of some negative force – war tension, confusion, but it is the presence of some positive force – justice, goodwill, the power of the kingdom of God.’ You seem to be operating from the more limited definition of peace which King described as negative peace.” I fully support King’s assertion here and believe that it supports my position. Peace is not a negative force; it is a positive and transformative force in the world. Peace is not only the absence of violence; it is also the hard work of reconciliation and positive love for enemies. But notice King’s remark – peace is not “merely” the absence of war. King understood that it was more than non-violence, but non-violence was still the capstone. You cannot love enemies while you are bombing them. You cannot work for reconciliation and transformation while you are killing those with whom you are trying to reconcile. One of the best exemplars of peace, Desmond Tutu, demonstrates this in his non-violent ethic of opposing apartheid and reconciling with enemies. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission certainly embodied a “positive” form of peace, but it could not have worked in a transformative way if those who had suffered had risen up to fight and kill their oppressors.
An ethic of non-violence is not notion of some “Categorical Imperative” to discern morality nor a utilitarian idea of ends justifying the means. Peacemaking is about choosing to do the right thing even when it doesn’t make the most pragmatic sense in the wisdom of the world. Peace is certainly a positive force for change in the world – it is the coming and present Kingdom of God. But it begins with the difficult witness of committing to Jesus’ non-violent way of life.
2)You have continually – in this and other posts, labeled my position as thoroughly Anabaptist, as if this is some unChristian perspective. You say your more “just-war” positions are in agreement with Baptist principles. One important point is to understand that pacifism is not a denominationally specific principle. While some traditions like Mennonite or Quaker hold to non-violence as a denominational principle, people of all denominations and traditions – Catholics, Methodists, Episcopalians, Pentecostals, and Baptists – are non-violent. Take Martin Luther King, Jr. as an example. Being non-violent does not make one non-Baptist. Today the Baptist Peace Fellowship is an important witness to the non-violent tradition that has always found witness within Baptist life. My point? One can be a faithful Baptist and a pacifist at the same time. I think one could argue that Baptist principles lend themselves very openly to an ethic of non-violence.
3)More concerning is your assertion, “Having acknowledged these differences [Baptist v. Anabaptist], getting into a discussion of which position is more Biblical, which position is more Christlike would be rather fruitless.” Why is that? When is a discussion of discipleship ever fruitless? Are you suggesting that being Baptist is more important than being biblical or Christ-like? Does denominational loyalty trump discipleship? I hope this is not what you are implying. I would much rather someone say that I do my best to follow Jesus rather than say that I am a good Baptist. Your point seems a bit too Landmarkian for me.
4)You ask, “What’s the pacifist response to real (not imagined) evil as with Hitler and Nazi Germany?” This is a good an important question. While one could drive one’s self crazy asking what the pacifist response is to a myriad of situational hypotheses, we must remember that ethics is first about identity formation. It is about being formed by the story of scripture and conformed to the mission of God in the world. This being said, my response to your question is that as a people transformed by the grace of Christ and formed into the Body of Christ, we respond to suffering by standing in solidarity with those who are oppressed or killed. We should not stand by and watch African Americans be beaten and lynched and condemn them for being too aggressive and impatient as the church did during the civil rights movement (see King’s Letter from a Birmingham Jail). Instead we should have marched with African Americans and witnessed to the world through the egalitarianism of our churches. We hope that the church in Germany would be formed in a way that allowed them to stand up to Hitler’s regime and refuse to participate in acts of hate or war, while it stood in solidarity with the Jews. We are to move to areas of suffering and seek to show love, refusing to accommodate to the wills of evil power. Sometimes this means we pay the same price as those who are targeted, and eventually perhaps we are targeted ourselves. The price of non-violence sometimes leads to the same result as that of our Lord – sacrifice for the sake of others. The pithy, or perhaps cliche, statement sums it up: There are many things worth dying for but nothing worth killing for. Greater love has no one than this, that he lays down his life for others.
1) Glad to see that you have a more optimistic and broad definition of peace, a peace that is both negative (anti-violence) and positive (pro-social justice).
2) I’ll grant that pacifism is not a “denominationally specific principle.” I’ve not made that assertion, however. Read Paul Dekar’s Baptist Peacemakers for an overview of the pacifist voices in Baptist history (King included obviously). It is, however, a minority theological position among Baptists. I don’t think that is disputable.
I referred to your position as thoroughly Anabaptist due to your past posts that advocated an Anabaptist vision of separatism. Couple together your separatism and pacifism and I think the Anabaptist label fits well.
I’m not arguing that Anabaptists are unChristian. Nothing I said should bring a person to that conclusion. I was merely trying to draw a distinction between historic Anabaptist theology and historic Baptist theology.
Given that I don’t consider your position to be unChristian, I’m not that interested in persuading you to change your mind. I can respect your convictions and simply agree to disagree.
Let me add that I do agree that Baptist principles can lend themselves to a person embracing pacifism. Soul freedom anyone? Good Baptist principle.
4) It’s nice that you bring up the example of Dr. King. If you remember, Dr. King was trying to effect social change via the political process. The March on Washington was in part about getting the government to end the system of racial segregation. We got the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as a result.
I do wonder though what the non-violent Dr. King would say to those who desired to “[stand] in solidarity with those who are oppressed” but turned around and refused to participate in the political process – a process which clearly has the ability to bring relief to the oppressed?