Peace at home and abroad

I recently read a challenging book by Shane Claiborne called ‘The Irresistible Revolution’ . This book has much to commend it, but in particular as a result of reading it I felt challenged to think through my attitude to peace and pacifism. I have tended to think that pacifism should be respected but is not really practical or realistic. This nation’s (correct and justified) opposition to Nazi Germany and role in World War Two being the obvious example of why war is sometimes unavoidable and indeed necessary if not brutal.

 

However, this notwithstanding,  I have come to realise that all too often I have not thought through sufficiently or allowed myself to be challenged on some of my beliefs in respect of military endeavours.  So, as Christians we should always be open to our theology and points of public discourse being scrutinised, seeking accountability and the light and truth of scripture.  We need to be open and unguarded. I was ‘relegated’ from Latin classes at school but I like the phrase, ‘Ecclesia semper reformanda est’. If the church ‘must always be reforming’ then so should we.

 

How radical are we on issues of peace? How biblical are we? What does it mean? Too often, the ‘Just War’ theory has been used and abused. In fact, I believe it may even have employed in the Crusades. Common sense is probably biblical, yet, pragmatism is not a biblical position. Furthermore, pragmatism as an ideology is a recipe for disaster so we must always be seeking to root our thought and practice in eternal truth and God’s revelation.

 

With these reflections in mind, recently, I attended the ‘Charities Parliament’ run by the Christian charity, Oasis. This initiative brings together Christian organisations and charities to debate contemporary topics. The September session was entitled ‘Peace at Home and Abroad’ and looked at the case for peacemaking in the international context, with reference to Iraq and Afghanistan and also the need for domestic peace, in urban areas.

 

Labour MP Paul Flynn shared his thoughts on the importance of peace referring to Iraq and Afghanistan. He commented upon the apparent failure of the mission in Afghanistan and the spectre of a Vietnam style exit by 2014 as the Government has set the exit date. He reflected that war is futile.

 

The Parliament then heard the views of Tony Benn, whom I have always found interesting.  He initially stated that you cannot have peace without justice (and security). He reminisced about his experience growing up as a young man in World War two, remembering that the church he attended in Vauxhall had been bombed and sadly many people were killed. Benn, lost a brother in the war and actually served with the RAF in ‘Southern Rhodesia’.

 

He asserted that the UN had been founded post-WWII but the action of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars effectively tore up the charter. Indeed the conflict in Afghanistan now has gone on longer than World War Two. Benn talked about the importance of non-violent resistance and the need to build peace through international institutions. He stated that all political decisions are moral decisions. Most decisions boil down to the simple but profound question: is this course of action right or is it wrong?

 

One memorable comment he made was that all good ideas are ignored, then you are told you are mad, then dangerous and should be locked up, then you are opposed or even abused. Then you can’t find any leader at the top who doesn’t claim they thought of the idea in the first place. This rings true and this principle might be helpful for Labour as it seeks to find its way. It is certainly true, that for many pacifism is a courageous stance, often involving taking positions against the tide of public opinion. I would not say that I have become a pacifist. But I do feel it is important to consider peace in a more meaningful way than I have hitherto done.

 

The other half of the evening was devoted to the positive work undertaken by Alex Rose and Nims Obunge (Peace Alliance) in seeking to build peace and positive transformation in London. This was the ‘peace at home’ element, as the title indicates. This contribution really added a contemporary and broader nature to the terms of the debate. The discussion was open, with one observer making an articulate point in favour of the case for removing Saddam Hussein. Brave, I thought in this environment, but it was good to have a broad range of opinions articulated.

 

The evening was excellent and thought provoking. Charities Parliament did not want people just to think, they wanted me to act. In fact, I failed to fulfil my action, perhaps this article can make up for that in some small way.

 

The true peace of the bible, promised to follower of Jesus Christ is found in God. This is what we should really seek and is clearly different to the world’s understanding of peace.

 

‘Peace I leave with you. My peace I give to you; not as the world gives do I give to you. Let not your hearts be troubled, neither let it be afraid’

 

John 14v27 (NKJV).

 

Are the peace of God and the movement and ideology of pacifism two different things? It would seem so. Biblically, peace can only come through God and the rule and reign of Jesus Christ. Ultimately, peace will not come through humanistic efforts founded on man’s best initiative. However, we must always seek and work for peace and not be accommodated to the prevailing views of society on this issue. Thus, we must be rooted in the word, have a biblical worldview, listen to the prophets and not be accommodated to the culture of our time.