Every Church A Peace Church

	Support ECAPC!
	ECAPC is a movement built upon the financial support of individuals like you. Click here to make a contribution.

	Publications
	Subscribe to Online Publications to support your journey!

	Register
	Individuals, small groups,and congregations are invited to join the National Registry of Peace Churches. More...

Following Jesus in nonviolent struggle for justice and peace, we love our neighbors and enemies as God loves us all, becoming a peace church to share in God’s work to save the world.

The Vision of ECAPC

View Archives

The Vision of ECAPC
by John K. Stoner
January 2008


Introduction: Notes on Beginnings
Complete series here http://www.ecapc.org/visionofecapc.asp

   On February 29 I will retire, completing my 14 month term as consultant to ECAPC. I find myself reflecting on the history and vision of ECAPC.    Seven years ago, in the year 2000 I started this project to expand the pacifist understanding of Jesus across the church spectrum, ecumenical to conservative.   The “justified war” tradition which has dominated Christendom since the Roman emperor Constantine (with highly questionable motives and honesty) declared the empire and himself Christian, has not served the church or the world well.

   Over coffee in a local restaurant, Rick Stamm and I (sometimes with Susan Stamm too) discussed what it means that the major denominational traditions like their own Moravian Church, do not adhere to Jesus’ teaching to love their enemies as well as their neighbors. As a member of the Mennonite Church, I reported on the pacifist tradition of the historic peace churches, Mennonites, Brethren, and Friends, noting that the practice of active nonviolent peacemaking in these denominations was more and more a memory rather than a vital way of life. And yet it remains the official denominational commitment of these groups, and amazing things have been accomplished over the years by their witness.

   Rick said, “why isn’t every church a peace church?” By definition, followers of Jesus should use the alternative form of power which Jesus used, the power of compassion, forgiveness, truth and love, not the “redemptive” violence of empires and multinationals. So what would it take to make every church a peace church?

   It would take a revised understanding of Jesus and his message, we agreed. An understanding which moved away from defining the good news primarily as a way to achieve personal salvation in heaven in the future, to a way to live in human harmony today on the earth which God gave humanity to inhabit. How to deal with conflict creatively, or facing the hard cases up front, how to deal with enemies, would have to become the obsessing question to which the church speaks with the voice of Jesus. In other words, for the church itself to be the change it wants to see in society.

   About this, I have observed, the Bible had a lot to say, but not all of it the same. The voices of our ancestors in that book are distressingly like our own today, setting forth competing ideas. On the matter of how to deal with enemies, the grand sweep of the book shows a general movement (but not smooth or constant) from annihilation, to separation, to reconciliation as preferred responses to enemies. It seems neither wise nor possible to act as if these three responses to enemies in the pages of the book are equally valid or obligatory.

   In our restaurant conversations we agreed with that stream of the church’s 2000 year tradition which has held that Jesus always trumps Constantine, or Niebuhr, or whomever, when it comes to arbitrating among these competing voices of our ancestors. And so we summed it up by saying that “the church could turn the world toward peace if every church lived and taught as Jesus lived and taught.” The project became to look again at how Jesus lived and taught, to pay unusual attention to that, with a commitment to follow where it leads. Out of that came the idea that there should be a witness, a voice, a movement which calls on every church to be a peace church because we understand that to be the call of Jesus.

   In this, we were not questioning the legitimate claim that every church already teaches peace in family and personal relationships. We know that every church teaches that all murder and spouse abuse are wrong. We are addressing the fact that only some churches teach that all war is wrong, and we see that as a problem so big that it should be overtly and energetically addressed. I am aware that there is a gap between teaching and achievement in issues of morality. But I object to the church continuing the practice, since Constantine, of reshaping it’s teaching to fit its achievement in the matter of war, rather than vice versa.

   After I retire from my consulting relationship with ECAPC I will continue to be a supporter of ECAPC, trying indeed to be the strongest of all the supporters of this important and visionary ministry.

Comments

ECAPC strongly condemns the 9/11 attacks and the murder of innocent civilians by any individual or group. At the same time, we believe that the best defenses against terrorism in all forms are policies which promote and respect human rights and disarmament. ECAPC therefore opposes the Bush administration's policies of war, violence, and threats against other nations in response to last year's attacks. We oppose U.S. support for despotic and repressive regimes which violate human rights in the name of national security. We oppose corporate and governmental policies which deny essential human needs and protections such as affordable housing; food; health care; education; childcare; transportation; a clean, safe environment; a functioning democracy; equal justice; reparations; and safe jobs with union protections and livable wages. We oppose spending trillions of dollars for war, defense and national security while basic human needs for the majority of the earth's people and of millions of the nation's and world's youth and children are not met. The result of such policies has been death, disease, injury, torture and violence against millions of people and children throughout the world.

Sounds like something one would read in a far left liberal book!

[John Stoner responds: Yup, if Jesus sounds like a far left liberal book, ECAPC will accept that criticism too, if it's meant that way, just as Jesus accepted the complaint that he ate with tax collectors and sinners. Tell me about the pure and perfect company you keep....]

Posted by: Nelson Rudisill

"About this, I have observed, the Bible had a lot to
say, but not all of it the same. The voices of our
ancestors in that book are distressingly like our own
today, setting forth competing ideas. On the matter
of how to deal with enemies, the grand sweep of the
book shows a general movement (but not smooth or
constant) from annihilation, to separation, to
reconciliation as preferred responses to enemies. It
seems neither wise nor possible to act as if these
three responses to enemies in the pages of the book
are equally valid or obligatory."

------------

ANNIHILATION, TO SEPARATION, TO RECONCILIATION!!

Perhaps that is a broad brush description of the
entire judeo/christian/muslim holy books. But it is
not what Jesus taught.

Essentially, Jesus said: This is my new commandment,
that ye love one another.

One doesn't need the 10 Commandments if one simply
does what Jesus commanded! Or should I say that
IF ONE LOVES ALL OTHERS .. S/HE WILL FULFILL ALL THE
MOSAIC COMMANDMENTS.

Take the one that says: Thou shalt not kill. It
doesn't say .. Thous shalt not kill .. except ...
one's enemies; whomever they may be demonized to be.
Or, Thou shalt not kill .. except .. if it appears
someone will kill you.

Most everyone, throughout the centuries, has tried to
weasel out of (rationalize) Jesus' commandment. Some
call it an impossible commandment to live by ... akin
to Jesus precept: Be ye perfect, even as your Father
in Heaven is perfect. "An impossible standard" some
would claim.

But we are not called to simply be morally upright, or
morally better, than any other. We are called to a
divine sacramental life; essentially a self-less life
.. that defers to all others. That doesn't set well
with Jews, Gentiles, Muslims, easterners, westerners,
northerners nor southerners. It simply doesn't set
well with any "human". It is not compatible with the
"human condition".

I would be the mother of all hyprocrits if I even
hinted that I live up to Jesus' standard of perfection
and agape love. There is a great gap between my
"faith" and my "practice" .. a gap that I refer to as
HYPOCRISY. I do not defend it. I am not proud of it.
But I acknowledge it exists.

The Christian psychologist Timothy LaHaye and his
wife, Beverly, have written several books that have
been helpful to me. "The Spirit-Filled Temperament"
and "I Love You, So Why are We so Different?" are two
that have had an influence on me.

Our predominant (and blend of) temperaments have alot
to do with our predispositions, thoughts and
subsequent behavior. That's been true throughout
recorded human history .. and no doubt long before
that! LaHaye's achievement is that he takes major
biblical characters .. points out their weaknesses ..
and then shows how those characters change when they
let God transform their lives.

Anyway, I'll try to get thru my rather lengthy email
inbox .. and devote more time to the material that you
post.

Your Friend,

Dan

Posted by: Dan Modricker

Submit a Comment!

We appreciate your comments. Your e-mail address will not be displayed on our website.
Name
Email Address
Comments (you may use html tags)

View Print-Friendly Page Send This Page To A Friend