Fifty Reasons to Declare Your Church A Peace Church

Fifty Reasons to Declare Your Church a Peace Church
by John K. Stoner       August 2006

For a short version of this, see http://www.ecapc.org/50reasons.asp

 1.  To locate and identify with your friends, creating solidarity with the wider community of Christian nonviolence for unity and strength.   To know who stands with you in the struggle against corporate greed and imperial pride.

    We do not stand alone in the struggle against corporate greed and imperial pride.  While there are many churches in the United States today which fly the flag way above the cross, and will believe the words and do the bidding of any one of a hundred generals before they will listen to Jesus, this is not true of all Christians.  The Christians who accept Jesus as their Lord first of all need to find each other, affirm each other, and work together.

    A small start, but a terribly significant one, can the the growing of the national registry of peace churches.  Let's have a showing of our true colors.

    Out of the unity which will be experienced as a growing list of churches which confess some basic human commitments around the the figure of the Basic Human, Jesus, (he called himself "the human one" or "the son of man")--out of this unity will grow strength.  Strength for healing the world, not for destroying it.  There is a difference, and it is time for churches to stand and be counted on the side which they intend to represent. 

    Jesus spoke of his followers as peacemakers.  Saul, a man of passionate commitments to God as he understood God, and to his people/nation, discovered how desperately wrong he was about the form of power which God was using and calling people to use in the struggle against evil.  Instead of the suicidal use of violence which some of his people, and Saul himself, had adopted as persecutors of others, Saul came to understand that the power of forgiveness and compassion which Jesus revealed on the cross, and Stephen demonstrated in his courageous death, was the power destined to "rule" the world.  This transition in his understanding of true power was Paul's conversion (Acts 9).  Christians and churches which understand this have a unity which goes beyond being labeled "Christian".   "Peace church" is one way to describe the conversion which indivduals and churches need.  The registry is a way to make it visible to ourselves and the world.  (see the registry http://www.ecapc.org/associates.asp)


2.  A church should register as a peace church because  we admire Muslims and followers of other religions who are committed to peace.

    Is there one Christian in the United States who does not wish that all Muslims were peacemakers rather than war-justifiers?

    Or let us say, one  “Christian” of the sort that has a “God bless America” bumper sticker on their car who does not  make a distinction between Muslims who wish to kill their opponents, or enemies, and those who will not kill but seek other means of conflict resolution?

    If Christians make such a distinction among adherents of another religion, why would they not have the wisdom, generosity, or common decency to do the same in their own case?

    Jesus said, “in everything do to others as you would have them do to you” (Matthew 7).  And so a second reason a church would want to be registered as a peace church is because we admire Muslims and followers of other religions who are committed to peace.

3.  A church should register as a peace church because Jesus taught nonviolence,  blessed the peacemakers, and practiced forgiveness of enemies.

    A peace church has a particular understanding of the gospel, the work of Jesus and the cross, rooted in the Bible and church history (but much departed from by most of the church!)  A peace church sees the human problem as having to do centrally, not marginally or incidentally, with violence.  And with the central form of violence, the most radical expression of it, homicide--the killing of humans.  And with the most radical expression of homicide--war, which is the organized mass killing of humans.

    It goes like this:

The world’s crisis of violence, according to anthropologist Rene Girard, is rooted in a very specific process of human behavior.  This process is equally clear whether you study the Bible or human sociology, history and psychology (science and religion agree).  It is a process of imitation of desire (mimesis), conflict leading to scapegoating a victim, and religious ritual as a method to control violence.

    In the Bible the word for desire is covet.  We want something because we see someone else wanting it (the whole advertising industry is based on this simple fact!).  This desire competing for the same thing another wants produces conflict.

    That conflict eventually leads to murder.  Homicide.  The other human is killed.  That’s the story of Cain and Abel.  The original sin--violent murder.

    In the escalating conflict, the anger of an individual or a society or nation, finds a scapegoat to blame.  Cultures have discovered that when they unite in condemning and killing a scapegoat, their anger is assuaged eventually, and their conflict subsides.  So they begin to think that the scapegoated victim who was murdered brought them peace--the scapegoat actually established law and order again in a chaotic situation.  So the scapegoat is given holy significance--is sacralized, and a ritual of sacrificing scapegoats is developed as a method of restraining violence.   A religion of sacrifice emerges.

    Israel developed a religion of sacrifice, and Jesus was the most famous scapegoat of all to be killed.  But when he was killed, he forgave his killers “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing,”  and in so doing he disclosed as never before in history that the victim was innocent, the executioners were murderers-- but even so they were forgiven murderers!

    The cross of Jesus displaced violent, murderous  sacrifice of victims with the practice of forgiveness. 

    The practice of forgiveness even of enemies, ever since, has been seen be some, and by more all the time, as the good news which heals the wound of humanity and gives the only  hope there is for the future. 

    We can choose to live in this way of Jesus, the way of forgiveness.  It is the only way.  There are not two or three ways to heal humanity’s crisis of murderous envy, there is only one--it it the self-giving practice of forgiveness which Jesus demonstrated on the cross, and God affirmed as right and effective when he raised Jesus from the dead.  People who do this do not remain dead--they disclose the deadness of those who kill them.  This is the way to God, who does not blame and kill but who loves and forgives.


4.   The fourth reason for signing the peace church registry is to create a welcoming place for  people who are outside of the community of faith who are seeking a better way than the suicidal militarism of empire.

    There are many people outside of the church who can see that Jesus was right when he said “those who live by the sword will perish by the sword.”  I refer to people who know that those words were not a throwaway line by a big talker, but a profound truth of history spoken by a man of extraordinary wisdom.  The practice of violence both by individuals and groups (nations) recoils on those who practice it in a manner which can only be described as suicidal.

    If this is not obvious on the short term, it is nevertheless inevitable on the long term.  

    As children grow into adulthood, they learn to delay satisfaction--to mature into long-term thinking.  To fail to do that is to be retarded in development.  The human race is being challenged today as never before to mature in its thinking about violence.  If we stay retarded in our thinking about the long term consequences of violence, we are marching a path toward suicide as surely as the march of lemmings toward the sea.  Staying the course on this march is not the better part of wisdom.

    And thousands of those people outside of the church (I would suppose they may well number in the millions) must live in astonishment, and perhaps some grief, that most of the church in the west (let’s say in the USA) does not believe or understand Jesus in this matter of the consequences of the use of violence.

    The behavior of the United States of America in the practice of war is suicidal.

    The church’s support of that behavior is one of the saddest things visible on the screen of human history today.

    A peace church registry is a place for churches to break ranks with the suicidal militarism of empire, and to say to people who expect better of the church: We understand the consequences of war and violence, Jesus was right in what he said about it, and we will not walk with those who sow the seeds of our own destruction.


5.    To explore and experiment with the power of compassion, love and nonviolence.

    The way of Jesus denoted by the peace church registry is a way of superior power, not a way of weakness as some, deluded by a great deception, have thought.

    The way of compassion, love and nonviolence is the way which Jesus revealed as a new way to respond to violence.  It was a dramatic historical breakthrough.  If Jesus had retaliated against his persecutors, his name would have been forgotten centuries ago.  But instead he spoke words on the cross which brought to a climax his life-long teaching of a different response to enemies.  He said,  “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.”

    Those words revealed truths previously hidden.  First, they disclosed a spirit of compassion  which went beyond anything which humanity had seen or imagined previously.  A human consciousness which could speak these words was connected with eternal resources in an unusual way.  A Roman soldier watching it happen said as much when he said, “Truly this man was a son of God.”  Second, those words of forgiveness unmasked the deceit of those who killed Jesus in the name of law and order.  

    So a double expression of power in the struggle against evil was revealed in the cross of Jesus:  A power of restorative, healing love, and a power of unmasking lies and disclosing the truth.  

    As disciples of Jesus, followers of his way, Christians (i.e. the church) are the people who are  naturally expected to carry forward in history that which was most unique and and powerful in Jesus himself.  It was precisely his unique response to enemies, loving them (responding in a way that was in their best interest as well as one’s own), that the uniqueness and power of Jesus were evident.   
    
    This is the power of liberation, of freedom.  Compassion, love and nonviolence are practices which set people free.  They are the truth of which Jesus said, you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.  The in global struggle for human freedom and liberation, the power of compasson, love and nonviolence surpasses the power of violence as the power of light surpasses that of dark.  (There is such a thing as a flashlight, but no such thing as a flashdark.)

6.  The peace church way is a stronger way to engage the struggle against evil.

    Many parents have learned that it takes more than harsh words and punishment to develop the creative capacities of their children.  There are folk sayings which are not true just because somebody said them and many others repeated them.  One such is the familiar line from the book of Proverbs, “Spare the rod and spoil the child.”  The rod (cruelty inflicted by supposed authority figures, extraneous consequences) has ruined many a life.

    In the end, evil is overcome only by good.  This truth, of course, does not prevent people from trying to overcome evil with evil, whether by cruelty, homicide, bullying or deceit.  Currently one government in the world is spending $500 billion a year trying to stop evil with homicidal (military) strength.  The critique of this expenditure rests not only on the moral depravity of such a commitment to the infliction of destruction and death, but also on the fact that it is a futile effort.  It will not work.

    Here is a truth from the Psalms which was affirmed in the life and teachings of Jesus, making the Christ event the hinge of history in humanity’s crisis of violence.  It is couched in terms of what God sees, and then says, when observing humanity across the world:

    The LORD looks down from heaven;
        he sees all humankind.
    From where he sits enthroned he watches
        all the inhabitants of the earth--
    he who fashions the hearts of them all,
        and observes all their deeds.
    A king is not saved by his great army;
        a warrior is not delivered by his great strength.
    The war horse is a vain hope for victory,
        and by its great might it cannot save.   Psalm 33.

    When Ananias said “Brother Saul” to his enemy in the city of Damascus (Acts 9), he changed history more than Napoleon or General Patton changed history.  Seeing his brother in his enemy, and thus loving his enemy, Ananias evoked a change in Saul which a sword or a missile could never have done.  

    The peace church way of practiced love and nonviolent compassion is stronger than death in the struggle against evil. 


7.  It is a clearer witness to the God who is love.

    The peace church way affirms hope in Jesus and the way of love which he lived and taught as the center of Christian truth, and guide for the internal and external life of the church.

    The Christ revelation affirms that God is love.  The church makes a clear witness to the character of God when it lives and teaches, as Jesus did, that God is a loving father/mother waiting to welcome the prodigal home.  On the other hand, a church which supports national superiority and military might betrays Jesus and makes God look like an angry father bent on punishment and judgment.

    As it stands today, there is a crisis of faith in American culture because the church, by and large, makes God look like an ogre instead of a loving mother/father.  It is impossible for a church which flies the flag of global dominatioin and bullying to speak convincingly of a loving and forgiving heavenly Father.

    Only a church committed to bearing suffering rather than inflicting it, to forgiving rather than destroying enemies, can give a clear witness to the true character of God.

8.  The world is looking for a peace church to model a way into a livable future.

    The church does not exist for itself, but for the world.  Some Christians describe the church as God’s chosen people, meaning a people who inherited the tradition of Israel, or the Jews, as God’s chosen people when Israel did not recognize Jesus as its messiah.  The whole notion of the “chosen people” is frightening and dangerous when it is understood as an expression of a supposed imponderable favoritism of God.  The mischief  (no, the horror) which has been done down through history by people designating themselves as God’s chosen people is not pleasant to behold.

    There is another way of seeing this, as follows.  We can say that the church, existing for the world, that is, for all of humanity,  has a calling and opportunity to model a way to a better future.  

    We can recognize that Israel and the church do share a history which is significant, and which should not be denigrated or denied.  To learn from this history is surely a fundamental duty of the church, and to act on what is learned a significant opportunity.

    The question of a livable future is, of course, the question of what to do about enemies.  Enemies whether thought of as rival nations, religions or economic competitors.  The history of Israel and the church (much of it recorded in the Bible) gives three distinct answers to the question about enemies, reflecting different views and times according to who was speaking, or what view was ascendent at a given time in history.  The three views are not each equally valid or useful.  

    Briefly put, there was the annihilation view of enemies.  Kill them, overcome them with superior force, use homicidal violence, prove you are right by your might.

    Second, there was the separation view of what to do about enemies.  Be separate from them, isolate them, isolate your own culture.  Build walls, build a wall.

    But there was thirdly, the reconciliation view of what do do about enemies.  Jesus brought this to a remarkable,unforgettable expression and level of clarity when he, dying on the cross, prayed for his executioners with these immortal words:  “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.”  But forgiveness was not invented by Jesus, even though it was raised by him to a new level of clarity by him.  There are stories of reconciliation with enemies in the Hebrew history, based on forgiveness.  

    One is the story of Elisha the prophet, who, when the eager, bloodthirsty king of Israel saw that the army of the Arameans had been delivered into his hand by Elisha, said, “Father, shall I kill them?  Shall I kill them?” (II Kings 6).  Elisha’s answer and action in response is one of the great texts of the Old Testament, which not a half dozen children in your church (maybe denomination) could tell, even thought they know a dozen bloody battle stories from the same collection of writings held sacred by the church.  Why is that?  But I digress.

    The world still waits for the church to model a way of dealing with enemies which would offer the world a future, instead of the current spiral downward into chaos through endless cycles of blind reliance on death and destruction.   That way is available in the church’s own teaching of forgiveness, but which the church has practiced with such parsimony and scarcity that it remains a secret hidden from the world, and for the most part, from the church itself.   


9.  To join a rich tradition of faithfulness down through Christian history.

    The peace church idea and practice is not an invention of the 20th or 21st centuries, nor is it the property of some odd or esoteric sects.

    The practice of loving enemies, which is the essence of being a peace church, was Jesus’ teaching and practice. And it was the practice of the early church for three centuries.  That is, what is often called pacifism, the reconciliation response to enemies, was the accepted position of virtually all Christians for hundreds of years.  So it is rooted in Jesus, not in an aberrant or heroic or unrealistic tradition with only marginal claim on the Christian mainstream.

    But after the Emperor Constantine claimed to have converted to Christianity in the 4th century (has the church ever learned to examine or question conversion claims by power hungry “leaders”?), and Augustine, Bishop of Hippo in North Africa, wrote his works which substantially wed Christianity with the prevailing culture, those Christians who practiced forgiveness and love of enemies were increasingly marginalized by the mainstream.

    Nevertheless, important expressions of Christianity down through the centuries held fast to the reconciliation model of dealing with enemies, setting aside, as Jesus did, the annihilation and separation models of response.  So churches which today decide to identify themselves as peace churches are identifying with the original stance of the church, and with the majority stance of the church in it’s earliest  (and many would say it’s truest) years of existence.

    An article by J. D. Weaver on pacifism in Christianity traces views of the church down through history, and gives sources for more information on the topic.   http://mb-soft.com/believe/txn/pacifism.htm

          A 2001 article on varieties of Christian pacifists and pacifist denominations may be of interest http://www.trincoll.edu/depts/csrpl/RINVol3No3/RINVol4No3/peace%20churches.htm


10.  The peace church registry is right because the peace church chooses a path to justice which does not deny justice by its method.

    Ghandi spoke to the effect that nobody is ready to be a pacifist until they have been engaged or severely tempted to be engaged in violence in an effort to promote justice.  In other words, we have a duty to feel the hunger and thirst for justice which Jesus called blessed.

    But the germ of truth which is in Gandhi’s words been distorted, and today all too often Christians say that violence must be used in pursuit of  justice because it is the only thing that will work.  This argument is used to justify war.

     There are several problems with this, and the first is that it denies that violence, that is, killing people, is the mother of all injustices, and war is the combination and culmination of a thousand or a million other injustices which can be named.  People who have lived with the horrors of war are slow to say it is anything other than injustice to the nth degree.

    The second big problem is that the claim that justice is the motivation for war is nearly always fraudulent. Looked at closely, something far more crass than lofty justice lies behind war, such as naked grasping for power, fighting for the goods of others, or corporate profits, all of which rise far higher than justice in the current war of the U.S. in Iraq, and its proud “war on terror.”

    The third fundamental problem with justifying war as a method to achieve justice is that it takes the place of other available methods long before other methods have been tried, or even imagined.  The argument that violence is the best available method sleeps through the necessary struggle which precedes the use of nonviolence and compassion.  Jesus struggled with the question of violence in the garden of Gethsemane.  His temptation was the temptation to abuse the power which was available to him, the devil’s testing which started in the wilderness at the beginning of his public ministry.  He called upon his disciples to watch (stay awake) and pray, and they slept instead.  And the church has done the same for centuries.

    To linger just a moment on this interpretation, there is really no excuse for interpreters (as they generally do) to fail to see that Jesus’ Gethsemane temptation was about the question of method.  The crisis he faced involved the destiny of his people (nation) and the potential use of violence.  His disciples voiced the question overtly: “Lord, shall we strike with the sword?” they asked.  And then, like the church for centuries after them, struck rather than waiting for Jesus to give his answer.

    The church should have the courage and good sense to stay with Jesus in the struggle over what method to use in the fight against evil, rather than sleeping through that struggle as Jesus’ disciples did.  And surely, 2000 years later with all of the history available to demonstrate the futility of war and the success of compassion and love in human relations, it is immensely more reprehensible for the church than for those few disciples, to sleep through the testing on the question of violence.  

    The peace church chooses, as Jesus did, a method consistent with it’s goal in the pursuit of justice.  


11.       A peace church is inclusive, not exclusive.  Homicide/murder/killing is the ultimate act of exclusion.  Once that is permitted in some cases, it is a threat in all cases and undermines the trust which is essential for building relationships in the inevitable conflicts of life.

    Of all the charges lodged against pacifism and the peace church by Christians who have adopted the tradition of justifying war, the charge of sectarianism, or narrowness, is one of the most untenable.  A view of human community which is willing to kill people who disagree with it should not, on the face of it, claim to be more inclusive than one which, on principle, will not kill anyone.

    The fundamental breach of human community is homicide.  The myth of Cain and Ab el in Genesis makes that clear.  God’s question to Cain, “Where is your brother?” is the question which just keeps on asking.  When a person is killed, the question to the one who killed is not “Where is your enemy?”  It is always, “Where is your brother?”

    The human community is a family, and nothing changes that, any more than your sibling ceases to be your sibling if disagreements or even crime ruptures some part of the relationship.

    So it is always the brother, the sister, to whom we do whatever we do.  A peace church says an unequivocal “no” to homicide, because it remembers that all homicide is actually fratricide.  

    Human relationships, whether interpersonal or international, cannot be build on threats of homicide.  The “no” to killing (which some have described as too negative!) turns out to be the fundamental  “yes” to life and relationship.      

    
12.  The peace church registry is essential to support conscientious objectors, and warn church members who are potential military enlistees or draftees of the spiritual and mental degradation consequent  to participation in the carnage and homicide of war.

    The Biblical precedent for conscientious objection is reflected, for one place, in the story of the great apostle Paul’s conversion.  Saul was not a conscientious objector to killing people.  He was armed and dangerous, headed for Damascus to arrest followers of “the way.”  But then he encountered a man who was a conscientious objector.

    Ananias went into a situation of conflict as a man committed to Jesus’ way of nonviolent intervention, and spoke a surprising word of truth.  He said, to his enemy, “Brother Saul” and history was changed (Acts 9).

    Using the same power by which Jesus said of his persecutors on the cross “Father forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing,” Ananias entered a room occupied by his persecutor Saul and addressed him as “brother.”  To see one’s brother in the enemy is to see truth.  To address one’s enemy as “brother” is to love one’s enemy.  It is not complicated.  It is not easy.  It is possible.   This is the power of nonviolence, and it is the power which will be used to save the world, the power which will give the world a future if it is to have one.

    The peace church way  supports alternatives to war and violence such as Christian Peacemaker Teams and conscientious objection.  Conscientious objection is nothing more or less than an answering commitment to see the brother in the enemy.  It is a commitment which should be taught by the church, modeled by the church, and supported at every turn by the church.  It is astonishing and frightening in the extreme that there is more support for conscientious objectors in the law and government of the United States than there is in the liturgies and churches of the United States.

    The church’s  failure to support conscientious objectors is a failure which will test the grace of God on judgment day as few things which can be imagined.  The church’s failure to teach an unswerving commitment to see the brother in the enemy is exceeded only by its refusal to stand with its sons and daughters of conscience who are hounded by the state to participate in the killing of those brothers and sisters whom the state calls the enemy.

    Today the United States, and much of the world, is filled with people who are spiritual and psychological casualties of war.  They were not conscientious objectors, they participated in the evil work of organized mass killing of people (war) and they come home seriously damaged.  The church has a duty to warn people of this danger of war, and even more importantly, to teach the Christian duty of loving enemies, which Jesus taught.  The church’s teaching must include the irreversible duty to see our brother in our enemy, or  else consider it’s Christian education program seriously flawed--not teaching as Jesus taught.  Regardless of how much it touts the Ten Commandments.

13.     The peace church implements the relationships envisioned in Jesus’ teaching of the reign, or kingdom, of God.

    The peace church believes that Jesus intended that his disciples, through the Holy Spirit, would live the values and vision of the kingdom, or reign, of God here and now.  Jesus said that the kingdom of God is “among” or “within” you, in the present tense.

    So the way of forgiveness, of compassion, of love of both friends and enemies, is not the description of some future in the heavens (Paul says that believers are in the heavenlies now--Ephesians), but the way of Jesus in this world here and now.  It was in this world that Jesus loved those who were  at enmity with him (and with God,) and it is here that we are to love our enemies.

    The world is not much interested in what Christians claim about some future kingdom; it wants to know what goods they can deliver in this world.  I noticed that in a dramatic way a number of presidents back (and it never changes): I saw that Richard Nixon liked to have White House church services.  That is, he invited hand-picked preachers to come and preach in the White House.  They were invariable preachers who spoke with more certainty about the next world than about this one, and what I observed about Nixon was that he didn’t care what Americans believed about the next life, as long as they went along with his program (as in “serving” in his military, for example) in this life.

    The peace church  implements in this life the pattern of human relationships, based on compassion and nonviolence, which Jesus taught.  It does not wait for the next world, or for a time when there are no lies or enemies, to tell the truth and to love the enemy.  

    The point is not that this is done perfectly by the peace church, or people in it.  Heavens no!  Nothing which humans do is done perfectly.  But once you make the impossibility of reaching perfection an excuse for not reaching beyond the normal or the easy, you’ve made the whole Christian walk a way that could be done just as well if Jesus had never lived or taught, never loved or died, and never forgave or rose from the dead.  There are good reasons for not being satisfied with that kind of  “Christianity.”  Living “in the kingdom” now is our calling and God’s gift.

14. The peace church can organize to honor the heroes of  nonviolence past and present.

    The way of peace does not begin with us or in our time.  It is profoundly connected with peacemaking history, starting with Jesus and the apostles, the early church, and  a faithful remnant throughout history.  

    For the church in the USA, there is a special connection with the black freedom and civil rights struggle let by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and thousands of other courageous women and men.  A  peace church today  appreciates the courage, sacrifice and wisdom of what Dr. King called “a struggle for the soul of America.”  It was also a struggle for the soul of humanity, and a campaign to build the “world house” of human community.  All of that cannot be left in the past or cast lightly aside.

    As one of the greatest prophets of our time, Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. challenged the imperial designs of entrenched political and religious institutions and powers.  Though his name was King, he challenged kings!  This required courage on his part, and on the part of the thousands of others, black people (and some white people) who joined the movement.  We see that history and appreciate it.

    We are energized by the example and memory of these African American peacemakers.  As we contemplate their sacrifice of personal ease, security and reputation, we think about our own love of ease, security and reputation.  We are moved by this to do more in our time, when the powers of racism, poverty and militarism are in many ways even more insistent and entrenched.  They endured physical, spiritual and social deprivations for the cause of justice and truth.  We hail them as heroes of nonviolence.

    It is time for the church to cover the walls of its meeting places, not with plaques to those who killed in war, but with the names of those who died, as Jesus did, with words of forgiveness on their lips for their “enemies” who killed them-- executed them for loving the least of God’s children, and telling the truth when those in power ruled with lies.  This would be a church worthy of being called “the body of Christ.”  The church must develop rituals, celebrations, banners, dramas, art and stories for it’s heroes like Jesus, Stephen the Martyr, the Apostle Paul,  and Tom Fox who died loving their enemies, memorials which transcend culture’s Memorial Days to those who killed in war
    We sometimes speak more truth than we are able to live.  President and commander in chief John F. Kennedy did that when he said, “War will exist until that distant day when the conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation and prestige that the warrior does today."

15.   The peace church is a step toward the development of a culture of peace.

    Do we have a culture of war in the United States?  In the world? One would be hard pressed to show that the United States has a culture of peace.

    Many people are talking about the need to develop a culture of peace.  That is, a culture which nurtures the paths of love and teaches the skills of nonviolence.

    Is such a goal realistic?  Well, is such a question the first question?

    When everybody thought the world was flat, it sounded unrealistic to call it round.

    And of course, the fact is, no country or people have only one culture.  There are many cultures, and there is indeed a culture of war.  It is frightening to think how much money good people who despise war pay for it.

    But at the same time, there is a culture of peace.  Or at least, there are many people of peace, and they sometimes work together in ways that begin to suggest cultural patterns or endeavors.

    In all of this mix, the question for the church is: where is the church in all of this mix?  In short, does the church have a culture of peace?  

    Good people in the church seem often to think first of what the general culture should be or do.  How about thinking first of what the church should be and do.  A peace church would be a great step toward the development of a culture of peace.  This is some of what Jesus obviously had in mind when he said, at the  end of the beatitudes, “a city that is set on a hill cannot be hid.”  The church as a peace church would indeed be a visible sign of what the general culture should become.  Everything that is something had a beginning, however small.  Why should not the church be a peace church as a first step toward a culture of peace?  


 16.      A peace church addresses racism, a persisting bane of human community.

    The second of the three principles affirmed by members of the National Registry of Peace Churches http://www.ecapc.org/associates.asp  sponsored by ECAPC is:

    We work to continue Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s black freedom struggle to release America and the world from the powers of racism, poverty and militarism.

    A nation which stole it’s land from it’s original inhabitants and ran it’s industry and farms on the slave labor of Africans kidnapped from their homeland has racism at its core.

    The sins of the fathers are visited upon their children.  That is not the work of a punishing, vindictive God, but the working of a moral universe in which human beings are responsible and connected.  Neither the responsibility nor the connections go away by neglect or wishful thinking.  Our generation inherited racism, and we perpetuate it--sometimes willfully, sometimes inadvertently.  

    The commitment to remember with appreciation and continue with determination the work of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and the black freedom movement is a concrete way to fight racism.

    Note:  An additional way today to fight racism would be to make a donation to support a historical and groundbreaking Sister-All gathering for black female justice workers between 18 and 35 sponsored by SpiritHouse in Washington, D.C.  Ruby Sales has asked ECAPC to donate $1100 dollars in scholarship money to assist young women to attend.  Can you help?  See the description of the gathering here http://www.thespirithouseproject.org/news-freedom.htm  You can send a donation designated for this project online here https://www.ecapc.org/donate.asp   Please send a separate email reporting the designation of your gift for this project.  Or phone (717) 859-1958.

17.  The peace church transcends tribalism and nationalism, and is loyal to humanity.

    This is no small thing.

    Our world teeters on the brink of suicide, thanks largely to the impact of nationalism, particularly in the United States of America.  “God Bless America” and “Support our Troops” are bumper sticker nationalistic sentiments upon which no future for humanity can be built.

    How often have you heard cultured Americans talking in a condescending tone about the inevitability of intertribal fighting of primitive or tribal people?

    Nationalism (camouflaged in the language of “patriotism”  is still the same thing) is nothing but tribalism writ large.  Who are we to condescend to smalltime warriors?   (And not all tribes by any means were as mean as America.)

    The church is called by Jesus to do better than this.  Jesus saw the impact of nationalism (or religious bigotry, curiously enough then as now linked as one) on his culture, and warned the champions of nationalistic bigotry, some of the scribes and Pharisees, that they would receive no “sign” but the sign of Jonah (Matt 12).
 
    Who was Jonah?  What is Jonah’s sign?  Jonah was the Hebrew who would not reach out to another nation because he feared that God would be kind to that other nation.  For his attitude he spent time in the belly of a great fish.  Jesus saw the same spirit in the Pharisees.  They did not rejoice when the lost were found.  This selfish attitude occasioned the familiar story of the “prodigal son,” the main point of which is that the elder son refused to rejoice (like the Pharisees) when the lost was found (Luke 15).   Jesus considered that quite unnatural.

 18.    The peace church’s loyalty to humanity, starting with the prohibition of killing people (conscientious objection), is a foundation on which humanity could build a future.  

    It is a discipleship way of courage and risk, but also of great reward.

    Does the church of Jesus Christ issue a call to follow Jesus?  Did Jesus walk an easy path?

    Here are the three peace church affirmations:

    1. I/We affirm hope in Jesus and the Way of love which he lived and taught as the heart of Christian truth and guide to the life of the church both internally and externally.
    2. I/We work to continue Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s black freedom struggle to release America and the world from the powers of racism, poverty and militarism.
    3. I/We support alternatives to war and violence such as Christian Peacemaker Teams and conscientious objection, making peace through nonviolent action for justice.

    Most of the first arguments which I hear against these affirmations are that people will object because they are too demanding.

    What should we make of this?

    Shall we accept the fact that it is a way of courage and risk as a good reason to change the way?  -- a good reason to conclude that there is something wrong with it?

    I wonder, what does Jesus think of all of this?  

    We know what he said:  “If any want to become my followers, let them take up their cross and follow me: (Mark 8).  That sounds like it would take courage and involve risk.  How much should we try to change it to make it otherwise?

    But it is also  a way of great reward.  We do not tire of saying here that the reward is hope for the future of humanity.  Oh yes, hope as well for one’s personal future, but ECAPC is not in the business of pedaling a form of Christianity which offers personal salvation to people who do not care about the salvation of the world.  It is still the world which  God wills to save, according to John 3: 16, 17.  

19.      All religions are welcome in the circle of nonviolent struggle, and can embrace peace without compromising their virtues or losing what is positive in their identity.

    A peace church is not an exclusive club.  Any and every community which has forsworn homicide (vowed not to kill people) has committed itself to inclusion more radical than the inclusiveness of all the groups who fail to do that, even though they may talk a lot about inclusiveness.

    There is a problem, in any case,  with calling the practice of following Jesus in life a religion.  Intellectuals and religionists have debated whether Jesus intended to found a religion.  Probably not.  But if he did, his would be one of the two great world religions.  In the end there are only two great world religions: the one whose God says “Kill your enemies” and the one whose God says  “love your enemies.”  

    So when it comes to the matter of “other religions,” it clarifies things to observe that any version of Christianity which makes Jesus compatible with war and violence is another religion.   “Whoever does not love his neighbor whom he has seen, how can he love God whom he has not seen?” (I John 4).

    Churches which affirm hope in Jesus and the Way of love which he lived and taught as the heart of Christian truth are positioned to welcome adherents of other religions, because Jesus himself welcomed everyone.  The call to churches to be peace churches is by implication and be definition a call to mosques to be peace mosques, synagogues to be peace synagogues, etc.  
    
20.    Children understand the peace church, and will even imitate it.

    When the disciples had an argument with one another about who was the greatest, Jesus took a little child and put it among them.  He took it it his arms and said, “Whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me, and whoever me welcomes not me but the one who sent me”  (Mark 9).

    What does this do with your image of God?

    To welcome a child is to welcome God (circumlocutions notwithstanding, that’s what Jesus says here.)

    Well, our subject is the peace church, and the assertion that children understand the peace church.

    Think about it:  what children do not understand is war.  And it follows from that that they do not understand churches which justify war.  Pardon me for saying it so plainly, but it’s the truth.  Have you ever tried to explain to a child how it comes to be that the followers of Jesus can participate in war with Jesus’ approval?

    Children know better, because they have come from God not so long ago, and they have not forgotten, nor been conditioned into believing the opposite, that God is a God of love, and war is contrary to love and to God.

    Adults try to teach children to solve their relational problems without resorting to hitting and violence.  Certainly without resorting to killing.  It is not a big leap for children to expect as much from the church, in its teaching and its practice.  So if your church is a peace church, you will find children understanding this.

    Beyond that, children will imitate the behavior of a peace loving and peace acting church.  Parents, I notice, hope that their children will imitate them--or imitate them at least when they (the parents) are at their best.  

    Imagine a world in which all of the children of the church grow up imitating the behavior of a church which loves it’s enemies--which sees its brother and sister in its enemy (as Ananias did, Acts 9).  

    

    
 
21.  Being a pleace church is a matter of integrity and consistency; make the peace church affirmatiion  to avoid embarrassment about the gap between word and deed.


To illustrate the problem of inconsistency in not being a peace church, today we share the story of a Christian U.S. soldier talking with a Muslim Iraqi soldier.  It would be hard to add any truth by commenting on this story!  --John Stoner 

The story can be found on the website of the Catholic Peace Fellowship here http://www.catholicpeacefellowship.org/print.asp?m=2341

Joshua Casteel, a veteran of the Iraq War and an eight-year member of the U.S. Armed Forces, has recently been granted status as a conscientious objector. He is now in residence as a playwright at the University of Iowa Playwrights Workshop. While in Iraq, working as an interrogator and an Arabic linguist at Abu Ghraib, Joshua wrote many essays to try to come to terms with his experience. One of these essays, The History of Memory, is published in our writers corner.

The son of two ministers, and a member of a military family, Joshua joined the Delayed Enlistment Program in 1997, his junior year in high school. That summer, he attended Basic Training, where he was already uncomfortable with shouting the chants, "Kill! Kill! Kill, without mercy, Sergeant!" and "Blood! Blood! Bright red blood, Sergeant!" But, he says, he took this discomfort as a general aversion to violence on account of his Christian upbringing, and didn't pursue its deeper significance.

Joshua attended West Point for a year, but soon realized he would be more fit for a liberal arts college. He continued his education at the University of Iowa and Oxford University, during which time he began to study the history of the Christian Just War and pacifist traditions with zeal. By the time he was deployed to Iraq in June 2004, Joshua was already theologically certain of his pacifism. However, he believed that he had sworn himself to service, and therefore needed to fulfill his duty as a soldier.

In Iraq, Joshua underwent a "crystallization of conscience." He describes his journey as one in which, although he had already intellectually converted to Christian pacifism, he had "required a personal encounter, a historical benchmark which would forever confirm for me who I was - and who I could never be again."

Stationed at Abu Ghraib, Joshua had the opportunity to interrogate a Saudi Arabian jihadist. It was this experience that ultimately convinced him of his conscientious objection to war:

The entire interrogation seemed almost mythical. When I finished I actually had to confess to my section leader what had happened, and how badly I had lost my objectivity as an interrogator, thinking it probably better to transfer the case to a different interrogation team. We spent most of the interrogation discussing ethics, Islam and Christianity.  The man was a self-professed jihadist, come from Saudi Arabia for the sole purpose of killing people like me.  Yet the entire time we spoke, he talked to me with a gentle calmness and evangelical tone, whereby I genuinely believed he desired my good - as I truly desired his.  He tried to convert me to Islam from start to finish, and coming from an Evangelical Christian background, I felt in familiar territory, as if I were speaking simply to my Muslim counterpart.  Then, we began to discuss war and violence.  I asked him why he came to kill, he asked me why did I.  At that point I knew I could go no further, unless I wanted to get into a debate about which one of us had the “more just” cause.

He then told me that I was not following the actual teaching of Christ, who said to “turn the other cheek” and to “not resist an evil person.”  Coming from a jihadist who flat out told me he would kill me if he had the chance, I did not take the personal challenge all that seriously, but I came to a clear recognition of the fact that I absolutely agreed with him.  I was in complete and total agreement with him, and I told him so.  I did believe that my participation in systems of violence debilitates my Christian witness.  I wanted to tell him that there was a different answer to injustice than the cycle of vengeance and violence condoned by Islam and by most systems of secular law: “killing in the name of justice or civil order.”  I wanted to tell the jihadist that Jesus Christ (in Islam, the prophet “Isa”) had taught another way, and that I was living that way as a flesh-and-blood example for him - but I could not.  For a moment, my job and duties completely faded to the periphery and all I cared about was confessing to this enemy my own sins in the hopes that he would recognize his.  But, I could only take him so far.  I could not actually lead him down a different path by my own example.

What I realized that day is that I whole heartedly believed, even when challenged by an enemy lacking legitimacy, that my participation in systems of violence completely debilitates the living example I believe is my bounded duty as a Christian to offer.  And I believe this lack of coherence made my Christian witness totally impotent to a man who believed he was fighting a “just cause.”

22. It is the wave of the future.   Pragmatically, if there is a future it will look like this.

    The peace church way of nonviolence is the wave of the future.  Even fundamentalists agree--a time of peace is coming.  But the fundamentalists are wrong in thinking that God makes that future without reference to human activity.  History is about God’s decision to create humans with free will, other animals with a little less free will, all to be co-creators with God of the future.

    The Bible story is replete with assertions that human behavior matters, and that it shapes the future.  To quote a verse on that would be to fail to quote a thousand verses that say the same thing.   Calvinism notwithstanding, we are not automatons, and God is not a divine manipulator of predestined humans.

    If you want, you can say that human history is a matter of the survival of the fittest.  But is you say that, be careful that you have considered who are the fittest.  

    Jonathan Schell has written a book titled THE UNCONQUERABLE WORLD: POWER, NONVIOLENCE AND THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE.  It is a persuasive argument that a realistic assessment of human nature, history, politics and religion compels the conclusion that the only path to survival for humanity is nonviolence.  So the fittest  turn out to be those who understand and practice compassion and nonviolence.  It is not a new theme; it is what Jesus came to show us, demonstrating it in his own life, and teaching it clearly with his words (though Schell does not base his argument mainly, or perhaps even centrally, on Jesus).

    There are signs of an emerging embrace of nonviolence by people and institutions all over the world, for those who have eyes to see.  That is one evidence that the future will look like the peace church.

    Another view of it is through the eyes of prophets who have been speaking this truth even though few people have been willing to live it.  Thomas Merton is one, Leo Tolstoy another.  Articles by them on nonviolence and human history can be read on the ECAPC website at  http://www.ecapc.org/articles/MertonT_BlessedMeek.asp  and http://www.ecapc.org/articles/TolstoL_LastMessage.asp.

    Humans as a race, not only as individuals, have a hand in what they become.  We can try to deny that.  We can try to deny the earth is round.  


23. History’s greatest heroes, its most admirable individuals, were pacifists.

    American cowboy stories have idolized the man of violence, but American cowboys and the historiography of the United States are not the whole story.  

    Shiphrah and Puah, Elisha, Abigail,  Isaiah, Jeremiah, Jesus, Paul, Origen, Menno Simons, Gandhi, Martin and Coretta Scott King were great human leaders, and pacifists.  

    OK, let’s not start with a definition of “pacifist” which makes pacifism unacceptable by definition.  Pacifism means doing something about injustice and evil which is more helpful and more difficult that fighting evil with evil. Pacifist does not mean doing nothing about injustice, or unacceptable compromise with evil. It means overcoming evil with good.  

    Some of the people named  might have permitted some use of homicidal force.   But fundamentally pacifist means peacemaking by peaceful means.  That is to say, it is other than the deceptive notion of peacemaking with a gun, in the mythology of the American Wild West, which has the chutzpah to call a gun a “peacemaker.”  Pacifism is the insistent bias toward nonviolent resolution of human conflict.  

    So the peace church is a church which is committed to truly pursuing nonviolent means of resolving disputes.  It will study, train, teach, invest, pay, and sacrifice in the pursuit of nonviolent solutions.  In other words, it does not offer a little fraudulent window-dressing of diplomacy before it takes up its real intention of proving that superior violence is the only way to overcome evil.  

    The church, sad to say, does not really know its heroes of nonviolence.  Take Shiphrah and Puah.  Their story is in Exodus chapter one.  They resisted the empire.  The church needs churches which will resist the empire, and do it creatively, as Shiphrah and Puah did.

    Does the church know and teach the story of Abigail?  We know David, we know Samson, do we know Abigail?  Here’s the story, in very brief.  (You story tellers can really go with this--do it!)

    In I Samuel 25 we have the story of a conflict between David and Nabal, two rich men living in roughly the same territory.  The were sort of Afghani warlords.  David had been doing a kind of protection thing for Nabal, and he got the idea of asking Nabal for a little payoff.  Nabal thumbed his nose at David, and said  that far from paying off David a little, he would beat the ____out of him and his men.  

    Enter Abigail, Nabal’s wife.  Servants advised her of the emerging conflict; they said of Nabal “Evil has been decided against our master and against all his house; he is so ill-natured that no one can speak to him.” (Nabal, let us say, was not a pacifist.)  She looked at the emerging conflict, and did something about it.  And ... well, I’m not going to tell you what she did.  You can look it up.  

    And you can read more about pacifism at   http://religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=115 .  This is an article by Reformed philosopher Dr. David A. Hoekema, “A Practical Christian Pacifism.”  I don’t know whether Hoekema would call himself a pacifist--probably not.  But he gives a fair discussion of the pacifist option, and I commend it to you.

24.  A good reason for signing the peace church registry would be as an act of repentance for the Crusades, the Inquisition and the religious wars.

    One does not have to be a cynic to ask what would be adequate repentance for the church’s role in the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the various “Christian” wars of history.

    If the church today is something different than the church which did those things, a way should be found to make the difference clear.  
    
    To publicly declare one’s church a peace church, to sign on to a peace church registry, would be one way to do that.  

25.  The peace church is a third way which avoids the worst and includes the best of the conservative and liberal traditions.

    There is a human instinct which wants to avoid being characterized as extreme--we don’t want to be seen as extremely conservative or extremely liberal.  (In this as in all things, there are exceptions, of course.)  This is a good instinct, to a point, and this discussion assumes the good that can be found in a mediating position.

    The peace church way avoids the worst of the conservative and liberal traditions.  On the one hand, it does not support the familiar conservative stance that “might makes right” and “justified war” thinking just because that has prevailed in the past in the church. Even in the matter of appreciating the sacrifice of military veterans, the peace church way avoids assuming that all human effort and sacrifice justifies itself just because it happens.   On the other hand, the peace church way does not assume that human nature is so congenial that evil can be taken lightly, or cultural changes can take place without effort and sacrifice of self-interest and personal convenience.

    The best of the conservative and liberal traditions can be embraced by the peace church way, however.  The conservative view that the past has something to teach us is central in the peace church.  That is why the first three hundred years of Christian history, when the church was essentially committed to nonviolent peacemaking (until the time of Constantine and Augustine), are taken seriously by the peace church.  

    The liberal view that the past does not have to control the future, that change is possible, is also important to the peace church way.  Thus, the peace church believes that humans influence the course of history, and the shape of the future.  It calls on the church to choose the direction it will go.  

    So the peace church is really a third way, not defined in the end by either conservative or liberal.  

26.   On the peace church registry, before a watching world the peace church stands distinguished by name from a militarized right wing church.

    Credibility is a precious thing for the church.  In today’s world credibility is not easy to obtain and maintain.  At a time when many highly visible and influential church leaders in the United States are aligned with the imperial policies of the government, the way of Jesus and the credibility of his followers is highly compromised.  In this situation, to be known as a Christian, or member of the church, is to stand condemned in the eyes of the world for worshiping a hostile God and following a Jesus who wills the military occupation of foreign nations, practices torture, and bombs homes and families in pursuit of phantom terrorists.  

    Is there a way for churches which do not accept or promote such an understanding of Jesus and his way to make that clear to the world?

    Yes, there is.  There are many ways to do this, and all of them include communication with words.  Words are important.  What we say matters.  The national registry of peace churches is creating a network of churches which have said clearly with their words that they do not believe that the world can be made a safe place, or rid of evil, by war, destruction, killing and torture.

    To say “I belong to a/the church” is not enough.  Or, it is too much of the wrong thing.  Is there a way to say something simple which is faithful to Jesus at a time when betrayal of Jesus is the general practice and perception?  Yes, to say “I belong to a peace church” does that.  It communicates briefly but clearly that here is a church which cares enough to address the horrendous problem of global violence with it’s language right at the outset.  

    The peace church registry is a network of churches, groups  and individuals who have made these three affirmations:

    1. I/We affirm hope in Jesus and the Way of love which he lived and taught as the heart of Christian truth and guide to the life of the church both internally and externally.
    2. I/We work to continue Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s black freedom struggle to release America and the world from the powers of racism, poverty and militarism.
    3. I/We support alternatives to war and violence such as Christian Peacemaker Teams and conscientious objection, making peace through nonviolent action for justice.

    Every Church A Peace Church has worded affirmations of peace in several ways over the years, but all have centered on the way of love and nonviolence lived and taught by Jesus.  We’ve heard that these differences have caused some distress, maybe confusion and debate among people--that is unfortunate.  We have tried to avoid the idea that there is only one right way to say the essential thing, the basic affirmation of nonviolence and “no” to homicidal behaviors.  We’ve pointed out that when there is something important to say, there must be at least four right ways to say it--on the ground that there are four gospels!  We have not offered basic affirmations which we thought contained differences which would be unacceptable to anyone who could accept any one of the affirmations.  

    On the other hand, ECAPC has not suggested that every use of the word “peace” is adequate to express what the church needs to say about its understanding of Jesus.  We know that in the United States, “peacemaker” was the name given to a handgun in the Wild West.  Affirmations which fail or refuse to state or imply any prohibitions can be vacuous.  Thus, ECAPC expects a clear prohibition of all killing of humans, all homicide, and does not accept abstruse arguments about differences between killing people in war and killing  people in other times and situations.  We find no compromise with homicide in Jesus, and we look for a body of Christ which makes no compromise with homicide.  

    On the peace church registry, before a watching world the peace church stands distinguished by name from a militarized right wing church.  This is worth a lot.          

    
27.  For Biblical integrity.  The peace church agrees with the way Jesus interpreted his Bible.

    The Bible is the record of the life and thought of the people of Israel, including Jesus and his disciples.  As such, it provides the information which is the rudder or guide for Jesus’ disciples today.

    When we look at how Jesus interpreted his Bible we find essential clues for our own interpretation of the Bible.

    The question of what to do about enemies, and the possible role of violence, even homicide, in response to enemies is one of the most difficult questions which any interpreter of the Bible faces.  In the Hebrew scriptures (Old Testament) there is much violence, and much of it is attributed to either God’s direct action, or to humans doing the will of God.  But all of this seems out of character with the teaching of Jesus, including “Blessed are the peacemakers,” “Love your enemies,” and a hundred other parables and teachings which depict love in action, forgiveness, and nonviolence.  The culmination of Jesus’ earthly ministry comes in his words of forgiveness on the cross, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.”  The way of loving enemies was central to everything which Jesus did and revealed.   So how is the message of Jesus to be squared with the Old Testament depictions and advocacy of violence?

    In Luke chapter 4 we see Jesus giving a central clue, if not fully resolving outright, this problem of violence in the Old Testament scripture.  Jesus is in the synagogue on the sabbath, and he does the reading for the day, from Isaiah 61.  He reads:

    The Spirit of the LORD is upon me,
        because he has anointed me
            to bring good news to the poor.
    He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives
        and recovery of sight to the blind,
            to let the oppressed go free,
    to proclaim the year of the LORD’s favor.

    And he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant, and sat down.

    Then speaks to the assembled worshippers.  He reminds them that Elijah healed only a Gentile widow in Sidon, at a time when there were many widows in Israel.  And that Elisha healed only Naaman the Syrian, at a time when there were many lepers in Israel.  The people are enraged at Jesus, and attempt to kill him!

    Why?

    The people were questioning Jesus identity, and claim to be a prophet.  He said that no prophet is honored in his own country, and went on to tell them of prophets who healed and helped enemy people.  This, it appears, angered the people.  

    But it was consistent with the way Jesus had read the scripture from Isaiah.  For he had quit reading before reading the words which are the climax of the text in Isaiah.  In the Old Testament text, the sentence which says “to proclaim the year of the LORD’s favor” goes on to say “and the day of vengeance of our God.”

    Jesus did not include the vengeance theme from the Old Testament.  He dropped it.  Vengeance was not his way of dealing with enemies, and by implication he was clearly saying, vengeance is not God’s way of dealing with enemies, for Jesus claimed to reveal the will of God the heavenly father.  

28. Sign the peace church register for mental comfort, integrity.  The dissonance of claiming to follow Jesus while killing one’s enemies is not good for mental or spiritual health.

    If this reason for the peace church registry sounds a bit playful or joking, let it be that, but let it be much more than that--which it is.

    Ask a military veteran about the mental and spiritual cost of homicide--of killing fellow humans (all of whom Jesus calls ‘brother and sister”).

    There is a reason why Jesus asked that profound question, simply and without commentary, in Mark 3:  “Is it lawful to do good or to do harm, to save life or to kill?’  He asked it because he knew that the answer was written as deeply and profoundly as anythng of any kind is written in the human mind and spirit.  Jesus knew that God has imprinted humans with an indelible respect for human life, and to violate that respect is to violate the most sacred mantal and spiritual space of the human self.  People know that it is not lawful to kill.  

    Children and youth are imbued with this deep respect for human life.  That is why it is so desperately wicked to degrade that respect by making, marketing and permitting video games which cheapen human life. And it is one of the reasons why Jesus more than once lifted up the child as the model for humanity.

    Adults have that respect for human life.  That is why the military has to invest so much in “basic” training, and reconditioning the minds of men and women to move them to a place where they are willing, or even eager, to kill.

    Signing the peace church registry is simply a way of saying to Jesus, “Yes, I see your point and I agree.  It is lawful to do good, it is lawful to save life.   The other way is not lawful.”  

    This is good for mental and spiritual health.  
    
29.     The peace church affirmation chooses unity with the historical integrity and power of the Black Freedom Movement.

Affirmation 2:
    2. I/We work to continue Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s black freedom struggle to release America and the world from the powers of racism, poverty and militarism.

    We know, but find it easy to forget, that the church has predecessors in the struggle against violence.  The struggle against the violence of segregation in the United States was led by the African American church.  The struggle to end the oppression of women in the matter of voting, and of leadership in the church, had its prophets in the church (though we should be careful not to claim too much for the church in this struggle.)

    Sometimes it is good to do a specific thing with clarity and depth to make clear a commitment to the whole in general or in principle.

    Identification with the black freedom movement (more commonly called the civil rights movement) may be such an instance.  The church which wants to be clear in its stand for the liberation of the human spirit and culture in all things today may do well to identify with the recent  struggle for freedom by historically enslaved Africans in this country.  This is incarnational.  

    The historical integrity of the black freedom movement lay in its courage to address the issue at hand.  It was risky for blacks to oppose segregation in this country, even as it was risky for their ancestors to oppose slavery.  Many, many blacks (even, or especially) in the churches did not speak out against segregation.  They were not seen in the streets speaking the word for freedom.  Those who did speak did so at significant risk, and all paid a price--many a high price.  

    An alternative, though not a good or adequate one, would have been to speak and preach of justice and freedom in general, without clear action on the issue at hand.

    The (predominantly) white peace church in the United States does not have a pristine record in the matter of opposing either slavery or segregation.  This means that there is still work to be done to address the historical reality and consequences of racism in America.  There are many ways to do that, but no adequate ones which do not choose deep and sustained links with the African American church in the United States.

    Jesus said:

    Blessed are you when people revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account.  Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you” (Matthew 5).   When he said that, he forged a strong (an ominous) link between his disciples and the prophets--the prophetic tradition.  

    With whom do we identify in the past?  Who are are heroes?  Where do we find historical links?  Will the prophet Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and his thousands of cohorts be embraced or held at a safe distance by the white church in America?  

    Many black historians, like Vincent Harding, much prefer to identify the movement of the ‘60’s as the “freedom movement” or “black freedom movement”  rather than the “civil rights” movement, because it sent an message, and intentionally addressed, the whole world’s struggle for freedom.  Harding writes:

    “From this perspective [“We shall overcome” sung in Tiananmen Square], the Black freedom movement, symbolized by its marching song, becomes essential to an understanding of America’s most important possibility for the world.  And our students surely need to know that what the marching, singing, organizing, dying men and women around the globe want in the most humane recesses of their hearts is not our glut of material and militaristic goods, with their accompaniment of homeless citizens, drug-addicted young people, uneducated children, uncared for elders, and poisoned environments.   Rather, what they see in us is the possibility of a large, multiracial, democratic and just society, a nation of nations, true to its own best aspirations.  This is still only a possibility, but people all over the world have not only grasped our living essence but have understood the centrality of the African-American pro-democracy struggle to the realization of our most basic dreams.” (HOPE AND HISTORY: WHY WE MUST SHARE THE STORY OF THE MOVEMENT, by Vincent Harding, 1990, Orbis.  

    The vision of the tree of life whose leaves are for the healing of the nations (Revelation 22) calls us to visible acts within history which nurture the process of healing.  
    
30.  The decision to declare one’s church a peace church lays a foundation to foster a culture of nonviolence, and curb violence in homes, schools and streets.

    A foundation needs to be deep enough and broad enough to hold the superstructure steady and firm.  The church as a human institution is both deep in history, and broad across the planet.  The church holds in its hands tremendous potential for the development of a culture of nonviolence.

    We can ask, What forces, what institutions, shape culture?

    Certainly the forces of individual commitments--values, practices, attitudes and beliefs which individuals hold--have a major impact on culture.

    But institutions also shape cultures, and the church is a significant shaper of culture.  Indeed, culture shapes church too, and that is a great problem from the standpoint of the church and of the gospel.  Is the culture shaping the church or the church shaping the culture?  In the matter of violence, and the practice of war, it is clear that culture has shaped the church more than the church has shaped the culture.  It is time to turn that process around.

    The phrase “culture of peace” has a significant history.  Only a brief (though long for this series of 50 reasons for the Peace Church Registry!)  description is possible here; I quote this from the website of David Adams who, it appears, played a significant role in the development of the concept and the formal structures to move toward it.  

    Adams writes (on this website
http://www.culture-of-peace.info/history/introduction.html ):

Although the phrase "culture of peace" was first elaborated for UNESCO [United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization]  in 1989, it is foreshadowed in the mandate of UNESCO when it was founded in 1945-1946. The motivation of its founders was eloquently expressed in the Preamble to the UNESCO Constitution: "a peace based exclusively upon the political and economic arrangements of governments would not be a peace which could secure the unanimous, lasting and sincere support of the peoples of the world.... peace must therefore be founded, if it is not to fail, upon the intellectual and moral solidarity of mankind." Based on this, the preamble contains the unforgettable phrase, "since wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the defences of peace must be constructed."

Already in the UNESCO Constitution we find the idea that war as an institution is based upon a culture of war that is broader and deeper than the wars themselves. It's like an iceberg: war is the tip which may or may not be visible at any given moment, whereas the culture of war exists continually, supporting particular wars from below and being continually reinforced by the wars that have already occurred. As the Romans said, "Si vis pacem Para Bellum" - "If you want peace, prepare for war." For this reason, a culture of peace needs more than the absence of war. It requires a profound cultural transformation.

    Adams draws attention to a 1995 document which describes something of the process which could move the world from a culture of war to a culture of peace.


And the following long quotation is take from   the final chapter of the 1995 UNESCO monograph on a culture of peace  http://www.culture-of-peace.info/monograph/pages194-195.html

    When in the course of history there is an accumulation of changes which make possible a revolutionary transformation in social relations, the mobilization and participation of people on a vast scale, a global movement, becomes possible through the development and sharing of a common vision of a new world. The time is ripe for such a movement and vision for a culture of peace.

The transformation of society from a culture of war to a culture of peace is perhaps more radical and far reaching than any previous change in human history. Every aspect of social relations - having been shaped for millennia by the dominant culture of war, is open to change - from the relations among nations to those between women and men. Everyone, from the centres of power to the most remote villages, may be engaged and transformed in the process.

As we have indicated in this monograph, organizations at all levels are involved and changing in the process. We have considered many of the most important of these organizational actors, beginning with UNESCO and its Culture of Peace Programme and extending to the United Nations and intergovernmental, governmental and non governmental organizations.

The culture of peace is, at the same time, a process and a vision. As people engage in a common process, their values and attitudes and behaviours grow and come to embrace a global solidarity and common vision. This takes place in the development process, as those who share in projects with others who have been enemies come to share a vision of endogenous, sustainable, equitable development. It occurs in the democratic process, as people participate across the lines of conflict in the making decisions for development and peace. It comes about in the struggles for non-violent alternatives to military action and power, for conversion of economies to peaceful production, and for preservation of the environment. And it develops in the movements for equity of women, of indigenous peoples, of all who have been denied their full human rights and take up the struggle for justice.

In the vision of a culture of peace, the very process of history itself is transformed. Freed from the culture of war, where history has unfolded on the basis of violent change in a cycle of suppression and explosion, it can move forward without violence. Instead of being determined by the few, the course of history can be determined by the participation of the many. Instead of being determined from the top down, it can be determined by changes and methods which come from the bottom up, beginning at a local level which is tied to a global consciousness. Under these conditions, the determining factor in history can become the social consciousness of the people themselves.      [source above]

    Why has the church contributed so little to a culture of peace?  Why, in the United States particularly, is it contributing so much to the culture of war, and supporting war with everything from bumper stickers to war memorials to commissioning of military chaplains and soldiers?

    For one thing, and centrally, Jesus has been left out of the question, for all practical purposes.  Romans 13 has been misinterpreted, and the misinterpretation used to make God the one who blesses states and their wars.  

    The church could have taken John 13 as it’s guide for sustaining human culture.  If it had, servanthood of one another (washing feet) and loving one another (“I give you a new commandment, that you love one another”) would have told it how to deal with “the other,” from brother/friend, to neighbor, to enemy.  

    Romans 13 or John 13?

    The church could still decide to commit itself to the building of a culture of peace instead of cultures of war.  For churches one by one to declare themselves “peace churches,” committed to the way of Jesus and following the example of those who have followed his example, would be a giant step toward building a foundation for a culture of peace.


31.  Sign the peace church registry to clearly renounce and distance ones self from nuclear, chemical and biological weapons-- from all weapons of mass destruction.

    The United States has pioneered and deployed weapons of mass destruction.  The United States has killed more people with weapons of mass destruction than has any nation in the world or in history.  For the church to distance itself from the weapons of mass destruction (WMD) of our identity and culture as people and nation, specific action, some kind of public witness, is urgent and essential.  

    Signing on to the registry of peace churches is a public witness to separation from the culture of WMD.  A good Independence Day action on this July 4 would be to initiate a process in your church toward declaring itself a peace church.  Write a letter, make a phone call, start a conversation.

    Jesus said, “By their fruits you shall know them.”  Surely weapons of mass destructon are not one of the fruits of the Spirit.  Invite compassion, embrace and welcoming to be your companions today.  

    
32.  Institutionally the peace church is the right answer to Jesus’ historic and universal question: Is it lawful to do good or to do harm, to save life or to kill? (Mark 3)

    When Jesus asked on that history-changing day in the synagogue: “Is it lawful to do good or to do harm, to save life or to kill?” he changed the discourse not only of that Sabbath day space, but of humanity’s discourse on law and on religion for all time.  The greatest question of law and of religion as well is the question of the value of human life.  Is it lawful to kill?

    The religious authorities (the Pharisees) in the synagogue at that time were very taken up with their own questions.  The big question in their view was, “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?”  They were sure it was not.  And they watched Jesus to see if he would transgress the law.

    But Jesus changed the question.

    Jesus asked, “Is it lawful to do good or to do harm, to save life or to kill?”

    How many correct answers are there to that question (or those 2 questions?)

    The Pharisses did not respond--they were silent --according to the story.

    But we and all of humanity are being asked the same question by Jesus, and we can respond.  Indeed, while individuals can respond, it is even more significant for institutiions to respond.  The synagogue was, after all, an institution, and the Pharisees themselves possessed institutional power.  So it is significant for the community, the institution, to speak its answer the the question of saving life or killing.

    The third affrmation of the peace church resgistry is:

    3.  I/We support alternatives to war and violence such as Christian Peacemaker Teams and conscientious objection, making peace through nonviolent action for justice.

    Conscientious objection affirms the principle which Jesus cearly implied:  it is unlawful to kill, it is lawful to save life.  The peace church affirmation puts on public record the church’s answer to Jesus’ question.  

    
    
33. In an age of “permanent war” the peace church speeaks an unmistakable “no” to war and its causes, and a yes to all that promotes peace and unity.

    What would be an adequate response to living in and paying taxes to a nation which declares war to be “permanent”-- the ongoing, unchanging, determined shape of its corporate existence in the family of nations?  

    Surely it would be saying a clear “no” to war.

    There can be no “yes” to life in the 21st century which is not at the same time, and just as emphatically, a “no” to war.

    The church can just as possibly say “yes” to grace without saying “no” to legalism as it can say “yes” to life without saying “no” to war.

    A “yes” to all that promotes peace is a very demanding, and grace-filled utterance.  If we indeed know the things that make for peace, and say “yes” to them, we have found a personal and a corporate vocation.  

    As Jesus said, “Let your word be ‘Yes, Yes,’ or ‘No, No’” (Matthew 5). 

34.  A good reason to declare one’s church a peace church is as a sign and action of love for the creation, and ecological sanity.

    Violence as such is environmentally hostile, and violence institutionalized as war is fundamentally and inevitably war on the environment as well as on human beings and the creations of their hands.  War exists by its own definition to kill people and break things.  War breaks the environment, and a church which forswears war by declaring itself a peace church has entered into a pact with the environment to live in a manner which does not kill people and break things.

    There is no way to justify war and not justify environmental degradation.  It might be an unintended consequence, but the consequences are as sure as if they were intended, so it takes a subtlety which is beyond me to make the case for practical or moral innocence regarding war’s assault on the environment.

    This consideration does not begin when “hot” war breaks out.  It begins long, long before that, in the fantastic, the utterly unbelievable and unconscionable waste and degradation of the environment which the global military industry produces.  The waste of fossil fuel to fly planes, whether for “routine training missions” (notice the perverse use of “mission”) or military “air shows” for the entertainment and conditioning of the public is only one example.  Another is the waste of millions of acres of land for military bases.  Another is the production, use and storage of toxic weapons, chemical, biological and nuclear.  Another is the conditioning of the military mind to become callous and dismissive of tender care for the environment which sustains our life.  

    Positively, the spirit and actions of just peacemaking instead of just war include the whole range of earth care, lowered consumption, admiration and appreciation of nature and sustainable living and lifestyles which mark a community which is environmentally concerned and ecologically aware.  


35.  Declare your church a peace church for the children and grandchildren of the future, so that they have a future.

    To declare your church a peace church is to take an action for the future of humanity--for a sustainable future.  

    Youth violence, teen self-mutilation, youth depression, suicide and mental illness are all closely connected to the world’s biggest industry--the production of violence and war.  Preparations to destroy the world-- ever since America’s blasphemous “Trinity” nuclear tests in Nevada and bombings of Japan--constitute a centerpiece of the psychic reality of youth, especially in the United States.

     Children cannot give up hope for the future without losing something essential for mental, spiritual and physical health.  Consequently, we are paying dearly for our obsession with killing and stockpiling ever greater capacity to kill, maim and destroy.  Our youth are the first ones to pay for it.  They are the canaries in our coal mine, succumbing to the toxicity of practices our culture has come to accept as normal.  

    Jesus took a child and set him in the center of the circle and said, “Whoever wants to become great must become like a child.”  (A golden green walnut leaf just drifted down on my iBookG4 here by my garden this morning.)  For Jesus, children were not a curiosity or novelty--they were the apex of God’s creation, and you guided your life by watching children.  If it was good for children, it was good.    

    A peace church has looked at the world, the weapons, the future, and the children, and said, “We will do what promises the children a future.”  

 36. Join the national registry of peace churches because people are impressed and attracted by lists of people and institutions of virtue, and by large numbers of the same.

    Registrants declare that they understand hope in Jesus and the Way of love which he lived and taught as the heart of Christian truth.  They affirm their solidarity with the Christian tradition of nonviolence represented by Dr. Martin Luther King and so many other prophets throughout history, and they engage in nonviolent struggle in the manner of Christian Peacemaker Teams and conscientious objectors--all so seldom affirmed as the heroes that they are.

    Does this seem too large a thing for a church to corporately affirm?  Or too small?  Does it seem too demanding, too risky, too clear and too big?  Or does it seem too easy, too tame, too murky and too small?  Does this seem like too much virtue or too little?

    Can it be both at the same time?  Please, try to think clearly about this, and make an honest evaluation.

    So then, what is the heart of Christian truth?  Is it a list of beliefs, some doctrines?  Or is it a way, a way of nonviolent love which Jesus lived and taught, and expected his disciples to live and teach?  Is it a way to live as authentic humans in the world, or a way to escape this world into some other world?

    To say that one is a Christian, or in a church, today can (and most likely does) say more of the wrong thing than the right thing. It says that one accepts the American flag, imperial ambition, conspicuous consumption, religious entertainment, self-absorption, environmental degradation and permanent war on terror as expected conditions of religious freedom and democracy.  If one does not want the words “church” or “Christian” to say those things, where does one go, with whom does one identify, to say something different?

    The words “peace church” say something different.

    Is your church a peace church?

    Returning to the beginning question:  does “peace church” imply too much or too little?  Is a peace church registry a public joke, or a thorn in the flesh of the empire?  

    Who would be impressed by a peace church registry; a public list of churches and individuals who have said clearly and publicly that they are not available to fight the wars of the empire?

    The empire would be impressed.

    It would take notice.  The NSA would take note--more subjects for surveillance, wiretaps, records, investigations.

    So a peace church registry is effective political action, because it has political impact.  Not because it starts out trying to have political impact, but because every time people seriously declare Jesus Lord (commander in chief), other lords (commanders in chief) feel the pinch.  People are impressed by lists of people and institutions of virtue.

    And, at the same time, people are attracted by such lists.  They are attracted because truth, and beauty, and love are attractive.  The peace church affirmations are simple truths, in their truth there is beauty and elegance, and they incarnate love.  Large numbers of people could be attracted to such truth, beauty and  love.  But it does not start out that way.  Many is never the place of starting.  Few is the place of starting, many is the place of destiny.

    There can be large numbers of churches, and even larger numbers of individuals, on national registries of peace churches.  But that does not happen by wishful thinking, historical inevitability, or waiting for someone else to do it first.  It happens as one by one as people and congregations say, “This is big, but we are ready for big.  Nothing small will do.  The crisis is big.  Our response will be big.”

    I will be listed as a peace individual.

    We will be listed as a peace church.  

_________________________

See the Peace Church registry online at http://www.ecapc.org/associates.asp

37.  Sign the peace church registry for the sake of consistency between the nonviolent conflict resolution which we try to teach our children, and the way we act as adults.

    Do you know any parents who teach their children “Hit back harder than you are hit, or our family will descend into anarchy and chaos?”  I don’t.

    The schools I attended taught respect for other people, and always tried to reduce conflict rather than escalate it.  

    The culture says to children “don’t fight.”  Adults who see children fighting in public wish they would stop, and often say or do something to end the fight.

    Many schools, perhaps most, teach some form of respect for differences, peer mediation, conflict resolution and social cohesion.   Children are expected, and usually taught and trained (though indeed often poorly), to find ways to solve their problems without hurting each other.  And certainly without killing each other.

    In short, children are taught nonviolent conflict resolution.

    So, what happens when children become adults?    Where does nonviolent conflict resolution go?  A person could wonder if “adult” in the matter of dealing with conflict means something like “adult” in matters of sex--perverted and substandard.

    Don’t world leaders have the common sense, decency, or whatever it is to be embarrassed by their wars, preparations for wars and rumors of wars?  How can they do it with a straight face?  

    After all, children are watching.

38. Nonviolent peacemaking is a truth, stance, cause and witness worth dying for; and since in the end we all die for what we lived for, even if we are not martyrs in the traditional sense,  to live in a self-identified peace church prepares one for a good death.

    The peace church registry records a commitment to be a peacemaker using nonviolent means, never methods of violence.  It is a commitment to nonviolent peacemaking, or “just peacemaking,” in the words of Dr. Glen Stassen of Fuller Theological Seminary.  

    Nonviolent peacemaking is a truth worth dying for.  That is to say, it is a truth received from Jesus, for which he gave his life and calls his disciples to be willing to do the same.  When Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life” he said that his way is the true way through life.  The way to life, yes, here and now as well as the future.  But also the way through life.  

    The claims made by emperors, preacher, bishops and politicians that the way of the sword is sometimes the way are false claims.  Jesus made the way of compassion and forgiveness his way and the way of those who take his name upon their lives.  In this sense too Jesus is the truth.

    Nonviolent peacemaking is a stance worth dying for.  Someone has said that if we do not stand for something, we will fall for anything.  To stand for the life of humanity and every individual human is to stand for something enduring and honorable.

    Nonviolent peacemaking is a cause worth dying for.  Someone has said it is better to fail in a cause destined to win than to win in a cause destined to lose.  The way of gospel nonviolence often appears to fail--as in the cross of Jesus.  But there is a deeper truth and a more enduring reality at work, and everyone who claims to believe in “heaven” believes that nonviolence will  outlast violence.  The question is, will we spend our lives compromised with the violence that is destined to lose, or committed to the nonviolence that is destined to win?

    Finally, nonviolent peacemaking is a witness worth dying for.  In this too, Jesus is our model.  His way of life was a witness to the character of God.  “Whoever has seen me has seen the Father,” he said.  He called upon those who would follow him to love their enemies, saying that in so doing “you will be like your Father/Mother in heaven”  (Matthew 5).  Nonviolent peacemaking is a witness to the character of God, and that is good news to people who are in bondage to the the deception that God is vindictive and violent.   Think about this when you think about “witnessing,” or Christian witness.

    This is not all about martyrdom, or dying, but it is honest about the fact that we all die in the end, and we have died for what we lived for.  That is why we say “to live in a self-identified peace church prepares one for a good death.
    

    39.  A peace church excludes mere transient self-interest from its considerations.  It is committed to the defense of objective truth and right and above all of human beings (in the words of Thomas Merton). If this sounds too lofty, we can look at today’s world to see what comes of not making this lofty effort.

    The teachings of Jesus, and his example of the practice, “love your neighbor as yourself” and “love your enemies” (Matthew 5) excluded mere transient self-interest.

    It is sobering to watch mere transient self-interest take over the lives of people, absorbing all of their time and energy.  And just as sobering to watch churches and nations as well let self-interest rule.  In the case of the nation it is always cloaked in high-sounding words, or not so high sounding, like “national interest.”

    To love the other is to seek the good of the other.

    A peace church has decided that human beings stand at the heart of whatever is valued as sacred, and that it’s commitments will enhance life, not death.  It is no small achievement, and no small commitment, to say “we exclude mere transient self-interest from our considerations.  Another reason for signing the peace church registry.  See http://www.ecapc.org/associates.aspReason 38
‘

    
40.  The peace church expresses belief in the essential unity of humankind, the best of the ecumenical vision, and  thus becomes in itself the future which it wishes to create.

    The peace church affirms on the level of spirit what is plain on the level of biology, that humanity is one.  There is one and only one human species, in which reproduction and maturation are universally possible.  The continuation of the species rests in the life and genes which the creator has given similarly to all shapes, sizes, colors and cultures of humanity.  And the education of the species, its maturation in wisdom like the maturation of every individual, rests in the collective hearts and minds of all of humanity.  

   We see many signs of humanity’s hunger for the way of peacemaking.  From private conversations in the homes and streets of people around the world, to the formation of thousands of non-governmental associations of people to heal, help and give hope to humanity, we see people taking charge of their corporate destiny, just as individuals learn, by become adult, to take charge of their personal lives.  Even those who have not heard the words of Jesus, “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God” are experimenting and living into ways of peace.

    The oneness of humanity means that patriotism is a distraction and nationalism is a sin.  To declare loyalty to a little piece of humanity,  and enmity against our brothers and sisters in the human family around the world, is fratricidal.  All homicide is fratricide in the one family of humanity.  Indeed, it becomes more clear every day that all homicide is suicidal, as we experience the truth spoken 40 years ago by Martin Luther King, Jr., that our choice is no longer between nonviolence and violence; it is between nonviolence and nonexistence.
 
    Moreover, the peace church models the ecumenical vision of a unified church, one in which the minimal Christian confession is enacted, that is, a solemn promise around the world not to kill each other.  This is a sub-point, but not an insignificant one, of the affirmation of a unified humanity.  The scandal of Christians killing Christians rears its ugly head in every modern war, and is surely as bad, if not worse, than the scandal of Christians killing non-Christians.

    The atmosphere which surrounds our tiny spinning world contains the air which we all breathe.  Our best friend and our worst enemy both breathe the same air which we breathe.  Air, wind and breath are all words contained in the word spirit, and Spirit is the name of God’s unifying presence, love and truth which is breathed into every human being.  To receive the Holy Spirit is to say “yes” to this one spirit of life, love and humanity.  To refuse the Holy Spirit of Jesus is to deny the unity of humanity, and the way of truth, life and forgiveness on which the continuation of the life of humanity depends.

    A peace church welcomes the Spirit of unity which Jesus modeled by his creation of the community of the Twelve, and his embrace of strangers, women, the poor and the outcast.  The church’s dream of a heaven in which all of humanity is united is idle and misleading if the church’s own life is not an incarantion of the unity of humanity on earth as it is in heaven.   --John Stoner

    
 41. The peace church identifies the church today with the first followers of Jesus,  the church of the Apostolic age, which was nonviolent.
     The peace church identifies the church today with the first followers of Jesus,  the church of the Apostolic age, which was nonviolent.

    What comes to people’s minds today when they hear the word church?  Do they think of a community of people who are at peace and making peace?  Or does the church have a warlike image?  In the United State