Sacred Tribes Journal
Volume 4 Number 2 (2009):69-73 ISSN: 1941-8167
INTRODUCTION: THE PEACEABLE CHRISTIAN Michael T. Cooper Trinity Graduate School Introduction In a recent discussion with a group of evangelical graduate students, I raised the question of how Western culture perceives evangelicals. They recognized that we live in a day when evangelicalism is increasingly thought of as fundamentalism. Names such as Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell are often the focus of the general American culture’s understanding of what it means to be an evangelical. Those names create an image of what an evangelical is and at times it seems that the culture is as much a part of defining evangelicalism as are evangelicals themselves. Along with many other characteristics that culture uses to describe evangelicalism, intolerance is thought of in terms of how evangelicals treat others and peace is rarely associated with us. This issue focuses explicitly on five evangelical perspectives on the topic of peace. It certainly does not represent all evangelicals, but there is a growing voice calling us to be peaceable Christians. Religion and Peace As has recently been demonstrated, religion continues to play a role in the pluralistic culture of the United States. Approximately 76 percent of adults in the U.S. identify themselves as Christians. While these numbers are continuing in a downward trend, other religious groups are growing. Islam, for example, has grown from 575,000 in 1990 to 1.4 million in 2008.1 Religion is not only important in this context, it has global importance as well. The Pew Forum on Religion and Public life commented, Trends suggest that religion’s public impact has increased worldwide, with major policy and security implications for the U.S. and the world. Religion exerts considerable influence on democratic transitions, and religious political parties and move-
69
Cooper: The Peaceable Christian
ments have garnered significant popular support in a variety of democracies. At the same time, religious grievances have been important factors in civil wars, interstate conflicts and international terrorism. Changes in global religious demography, such as the rapid growth of Christianity in the global South and increased Muslim immigration to Western nations, also continue to shape public attitudes and government policies.2 The reality is that religion continues to be an important factor in our global society. In his opening remarks at the General Assembly on the Promotion of Inter-religious and Intercultural Dialogue Understanding and Cooperation for Peace in November 2008, the United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon stated, We live in a wonderfully diverse global village. Globalization can be a great force for progress. But as economies merge, as cultural boundaries disappear, as new media bring our societies closer together than ever before, new fault lines can emerge. And indeed, we are seeing some troubling phenomena. Communal strife is intensifying. Extremist ideologies are on the rise. Societies are more polarized. Anti-Semitism remains a scourge. Islamophobia has emerged as a new term for an old and terrible form of prejudice. And other kinds of faith-based discrimination and racism show a dismaying persistence. Sometimes it seems as if none of history’s awful lessons have been learned. 3 History demonstrates that incidences of violence are more likely to occur for at least two reasons. First, violence is likely to occur when one group, either minority or not, feels threatened. Second, violent acts tend to occur when one group is responsible for social control over another. These tendencies are exacerbated with the “war” rhetoric of religious fundamentalist movements around the world. Such rhetoric continues to communicate a message that is contrary to the teachings of many religious leaders who are seeking peace. Certainly religious people around the world are facing persecution. One must only recall that 70 million Christians have been martyred in the last 20 centuries; nearly 6 million of those were martyred by other Christians. Approximately 160,000 Christians are martyred each year. However, Christians are not the only religious group experiencing martyrdom. Eighty million Muslims and 20 million Hindus have been martyred in their faith’s religious histories. Yet, violence takes other forms that are equally as horrid. Racism and ethnocentrism continue to plague even the most civil of societies. Abuse of women and children here in the States and aboard is an issue that is yet to be resolved. Human trafficking for sex or slavery is a moral ill the world over. All of these violent activities only denigrate the dignity of a humanity created in the image of God and threaten peace.
70
Sacred Tribes Journal
Volume 4 Number 2 (2009):69-73 ISSN: 1941-8167
The Peaceable Christian In the midst of such a climate the Christian is called to be different. The apostle Paul reminds the Christians in Rome that theirs is a higher work that is conducive to peace. It is at the same time both a manner in which the Christian relates to others as well as a characteristic of the church itself. Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them. Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep. Live in harmony with one another. Do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly. Never be conceited. Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. (Rom 12:14-18) The New Testament is replete with references regarding the Christian and peace. For example, a telltale sign that God is pleased with his people is they live in peace with one another (Luke 2:14). Jesus taught that the Christian is to be a peacemaker (Matt 5:10) and bearer of peace (Matt 10:13) to those they contact. Jesus had much to say, or perhaps demonstrate by example, in terms of Christianity’s attitude toward others. While it is true that there was very little tolerance in Jesus’ teaching on the Jewish law, especially as it related to the religious leaders of Israel,4 he was gracious when it came to people of different faiths (Matt 15:21-28; Mark 7:24-30; Luke 7:1-10; 22:63-65; 23:34-38; John 4:46-54). The situation with James and John— the sons of Thunder—asking if they should call down fire on the Samaritans for their rejection of Jesus gives a good idea of his attitude toward those who would reject him and his disciples. Luke tells us, “But he turned and rebuked them” (9:54). Jesus’ response was consistent with his teaching regarding the Christian’s relationship to others. One will recall that even those moved to anger toward another will suffer the same judgment as a murderer (Matt 5:21-26). Peter might give us the most compelling view of Jesus’ response to how the Christian should live in relationship to others. Writing to Christians in Asia Minor around the time of Nero, Peter put ink to papyrus as one who knew Christ. He encouraged the Christians with a reminder of the living hope and the imperishable inheritance that awaits them in heaven. These believers had experienced suffering and difficulties; however, Peter wrote and encouraged them to rejoice in the hope and inheritance that they have in Christ. In fact, they shared in the sufferings of Christ. He instructed them to entrust their souls to the faithful Creator by
71
Cooper: The Peaceable Christian
doing what was right. Likewise, he called them to be holy as God is holy, to prepare their minds for action, to be sober in spirit and to obey God. As foreigners among others they must have an attitude of obedience, doing what is righteous, enduring suffering with patience so others would see and glorify God. Peter exhorted them to be submitted to human institutions and to live harmoniously together because this was the example of Christ, For what credit is it if, when you sin and are beaten for it you endure? But if when you do good and suffer for it you endure, this is a gracious thing in the sight of God. For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps. He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth. When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten, but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly. (1 Pet 2:20-23) Peter’s relationship with Christ uniquely positioned him to make such an observation. The observation becomes even more poignant when consideration is given to the evangelists’ account of Peter’s confrontation with the sword and club bearing servants of the High Priest along with the Roman soldiers who came to arrest Jesus in the garden of Gethsemane. It is John who explicitly identifies Peter as the one who drew the sword and cut off the ear of Malchus (John 18:10). However, it is Matthew who gives us the full force of Jesus teaching on the use of the sword, “Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword” (26:52-53). Nearly thirty years later Peter would write what he understood to be the proper Christian relationship with others. He describe the Christian’s attitude as, “gentleness and respect, having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame” (1 Pet 3:16); significantly different from the sword in the garden. He conclude by wishing peace to those who believe in Christ. Conclusion There are voices among evangelicals who call for peace. Indeed, all evangelicals need to hear the call once again to live at peace with one another (Rom 12.18). The following essays represent the efforts of five evangelical academics who wrestled through issues of peace from interdisciplinary perspectives. They do not pretend to be sophisticated treatments on peace studies. Rather, they represent honest attempts to understand the issues on a personal level while sharing what they have discovered with others. All the essays will agree that evangelicals need to think more deeply on the subject. We agree that peacemaking should be a priority for Christians. We concur with the 1993 Chicago Declaration of Evangelical Social Concern:
72
Sacred Tribes Journal
Volume 4 Number 2 (2009):69-73 ISSN: 1941-8167
We weep over escalating violence, abuse, disregard for the sanctity of human life, and addiction to weapons—in both nations and neighborhoods—that destroy lives and breed fear. We dream of faith communities that model loving ways of resolving conflict, seek to be peacemakers rather than passive spectators, calling the nations to justice and righteousness.5
1
Much of this growth is due to birth and immigration rather than conversion. See Michael T. Cooper, Jonathan Brown, Rebecca Erickson and David Liu, “US Religious Landscape: Analysis with Potential Implications on American Religious Identity,” Sacred Tribes Journal, Vol. 3 No. 1 (2008): 73-83. 2 “Religion and World Affairs,” Internet resource available from http://pewforum.org/world-affairs. Accessed 1 December 2009. 3 Ban Ki-moon, “Remarks at the General Assembly High-Level Meeting on the Promotion of Inter-Religious and Inter-cultural Dialogue, Understanding and Cooperation for Peace,” 12 November 2008. 4 On several occasions Jesus asserted, “You have heard that it was said . . . . But I say to you . . . ” (Matt 5:21-22, 27-28, 31-32, 38-39, 43-44). 5 “The 1993 Chicago Declaration.” Internet resource available from http://www.cpjustice.org/node/928. Accessed 2 December 2009.
73