Edgework

This is the title of a statement from a peace church perspective given recently by the faculty of the Theological Seminary of Bienenberg, Switzerland. In it nine individuals wrestle deeply with the question of whether the present situation in Iraq and Syria renders the traditional pacifist position of their institution obsolete.

The Anabaptist seminary at Bienenberg emerged in the wake of World War II. The European Mennonite Church had awakened to the devastating awareness that during the war Mennonite church members had fought against, and even killed, their brothers in the faith on both sides of the conflict. The school was established as a means of reuniting the shattered European Mennonite community around the central, biblical notion of peace. Since 1950 it has been a key link between German, Swiss and French Mennonites.

So the Bienenberg statement against violence is worthy of note since it has been tested against the backdrop of unimaginable violence. Yet, faculty at the seminary are aware that even as they speak out, many, even in traditional peace churches, are adding their blessing to violence responding to violence in the Middle East. However, they say, “We do not want to let ourselves be paralyzed by helplessness and resignation, but rather we carry on, humbly and with the help of God’s Spirit, in the ‘hunt for peace’ (Hebrews 12:14) as best we are able. This we do in solidarity with the victims of these inhuman actions. God have mercy!”

The statement first addresses the objection that Christian pacifism is idealist and naïve. This charge against those who set themselves against using violence against violence is nothing new. So what would happen, it is asked, if even more people were seduced into nonviolence? That question unfortunately remains unanswered, “…which is a shame, because history has recorded a good number of stories of peacemakers whose apparent ‘naïve” pacifism impeded or put an end to bloodshed.” It is clear that the way of nonviolence can be costly and offers no guarantee of success. But the same can be said for the way of violence.

Secondly, the statement speaks to the common perception that violence can only be stopped with violence.  However, to cite a contemporary case in point, it refers to the American-led war on Iraq which has, “…left behind a region crippled by a political vacuum which has since then been filled by increasingly radical groups.” This illustrates the truth Benjamin L. Corey asks about: “If the use of violence is how we got here, why would we think MORE violence would actually make things better? …One can only imagine what would happen if at least as much funding were directed into conflict prevention and reconstruction as is to the stockpile of weapons that is supposed to secure or reestablish peace.”

Then the statement asks the difficult question as to whether pacifists should simply stand by and watch as terrible violence happens. The answer is clearly, No! The church’s peace position can never be equivalent to apathetic passivity. Criticism of the peace position based on Jesus’ teaching is justified if it means that Christians simply turn away as long as they are able and pretend that all is well. Evil must be confronted; but peace churches are not convinced that violence is the best way to do so. Yet the pressures to meet violence with violence, coming from human nature, our cultural myths and historical precedent, is often overwhelming. Even so, Bienenberg faculty suggest that we need to resist this pressure and look for alternative, peaceful means to confront violence.

The first thing Christians must do is pray. To those outside the faith community that seems like a cop-out. Doesn’t everyone pray in the context of war – especially for their troops attempting to eliminate the enemy? But Christians, who are accustomed to prayer in the context of everyday life, must redouble their prayer efforts during times of violence. Their prayers are for peace and reconciliation involving both sides of the conflict and especially for the victims of violence. They understand that, “It is not by might nor by power, but by my Spirit, says the Lord” (Zechariah4:6). That raises the question of why global conflicts are not included more often in the prayers of our churches.

The statement also calls for continued involvement in nonviolent peacemaking operations; the kind where “…people in conflict zones around the globe dare to place themselves between the fronts without weapons.” That is precisely what Ron Sider advocated in 1984 when Christian Peacemaker Teams (CPT) had its beginning. The stories of team members in conflict zones around the world coming from CPT are inspiring indeed. However, it seems to me that Sider had envisioned a much larger movement of peace Christians inserting themselves into harm’s way. In the present conflict with the Islamic State (IS), it would also mean being in touch with Christians who are being directly affected.

A third response should be to help refugees. This has traditionally been the Anabaptist way. It has also characterized much of the Canadian response to violence in the past half century. In a recent article in Globe and Mail, Mark MacKinnon laments the fact that the Canadian reputation abroad has recently shifted. Once we were known as refugee friendly and balance-seekers in the context of violence, but now we are known to be much more belligerent and for that we are beginning to pay the price.

The Bienenberg statement does concede that in some cases there may be the need for limited international policing operations, for example to secure safe areas for refugees. However they insist that use of force in such cases would have an entirely different focus than eliminating the enemy through the use of lethal weapons.

Perhaps you are not in agreement with the Bienenberg faculty about the present conflict with IS. Then the challenge is for you to formulate your own response that is informed by the biblical vision of peace.