A New Year's Prayer for Christian Peacemakers (by Gabriel Salguero)
Last year, my wife Jeanette and I returned to Honduras with a group from our congregation. What alarmed me was that a decade ago the MS (La Mara Salvatrucha) had a considerable presence in many of the poorest neighborhoods. Now they have a stronghold. One of my pastor friends told me, "Gabriel, people are afraid to come to church. The MS killed a woman in front of the church just the other day." The MS is going global. Recently Law & Order had an episode that featured the MS presence in New York City. The MS has chapters in California, Illinois, New Jersey, and elsewhere. Increasingly, some of our youngest and brightest are seduced into a culture of violence that is perpetuated to their children and later generations. Violence, sample one.
Last month, Benazir Bhutto was assassinated as she sought to be a voice (in spite of her shortcomings) for democracy in Pakistan. Violence and disruption ensued as many are still concerned about the future of democracy and stability in Pakistan. Violence, sample two.
Presently, tens of thousands of Kikuyus in Kenya are fleeing from ethnic violence in reaction to questions about recent elections. The Kalenjin and Kikuyus have fought before and this struggle is re-emerging in ever more violent ways. In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, fighting between Congolese Tutsis and other factions, including some Rwandan Hutus, has sparked the Roman Catholic Conference of Bishops to call for an end to fighting. In Sri Lanka, the end of a truce looms large and there is a growing concern of escalating conflict. The long standing violent impasse between Palestinians and Israelis still remains unresolved. Violence, samples three to six.
The conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq do not appear to be headed to an end and there is the growing question of how the countries involved will come to a place where governmental stability and peace for its citizens will emerge. Violence, samples seven and eight.
In the midst of all these examples, and so many others too high in number to mention, the question is, "How do the followers of the Prince of Peace respond to this surge of global violence?" I think that one of the contemporary challenges of the followers of Jesus is to hear the beatitude anew: "Blessed are the peacemakers for they will be called children of God." While I recognize that many may disagree on how peace should be attained, few would disagree that genocide, gang violence, terrorism, and endless wars are not what Jesus expects from his disciples. Certainly, Jesus knew that humanity has a propensity to destroy those with whom they disagree. Still, the Jesus message is a call to a higher standard. Jesus in his life and ministry took the road less traveled.
Someone once asked a civil rights leader about his method of non-violence deeply influenced by Gandhi. The response: "It's how you pick up the phone." In short, we as followers of Jesus are challenged to emulate the Prince of Peace in even how we talk to on the phone or in traffic. People of every generation are calling for a revolution in culture where we do not rush to violence, but seek the way of peace. I am not saying that tyrants need not be confronted and that theories of just war theory are not valid. Neither am I saying that I too haven't sinfully yielded to the temptations of violence in thought or speech. What I am saying is, "There's too much violence in the world and regrettably, too often it is the first and only option." I pray for the day when all of God's children "will study war no more." Until then let us model peace, in as much as we are able.
Rev. Gabriel Salguero is the pastor of the Lamb’s Church of the Nazarene in New York City, a Ph.D. candidate at Union Theological Seminary, and the director of the Hispanic Leadership Program at Princeton Theological Seminary. He is also a Sojourners board member.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
Thank you for the excellent writing full of grace and challenge; available for me to prayerfully receive. The piece invites the part of me open to challenge (peacemaking) without stepping on me for the parts of me drawn to violence.
It is easy for the prophets who blog and comment here to rightfully call me on the connections of my life to violence--and be dumbfounded by my lack of passion for rejecting that violence. But such calls tend to fall on deaf ears and a numb heart until I have the transplanted heart of the Peacemaker.
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | January 8, 2008 1:15 PM
According to some, Romans 13 means that nations are not called to be a peace with each other. Nations can go to war for any reason as long as their leader commands it, and Christians need to obey that leader since to obey him is to obey God. Peace and forgiveness are personal goals, but they're not national goals. Or am I reading Romans 13 wrong?
Posted by: Ashpenaz | January 8, 2008 6:21 PM
The last line of the article requests: "...let us model peace, in as much as we are able."
Instead of turning this line of comments into another Romans 13 argument--how about if we seek to model peace as much as we are able. After we do that piece there might be good opportunity to argue Romans 13.
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | January 8, 2008 8:33 PM
So Rev.
Just what should we be praying for and is it our job to petition the Almighty on behalf of anyone?
Blessings -
.
Posted by: moderatelad | January 8, 2008 11:21 PM
How can we pray for peace when nations are nowhere commanded to be at peace with each other?
Posted by: Ashpenaz | January 8, 2008 11:53 PM
Hey, I'm new to Sojourners. My comments in relation to violence vs non-violence: Should we "turn the other cheek" or stand up for what we believe?
(mercy vs justice). What was it I heard one time.. the only thing it takes for evil to prevail is for good mene to be silent? Where do we make the decision to 'pray or physically act'?
I think we should lean more heavily on the philosophy of love one another(Jesus 2nd commandment). But all to often, the adversary only RESPECTS strength. Hmmm, which will it be today? Dear Lord Jehovah, give us direction as we seek your Kingdom come.
Gary
Hebrews 12:1,2
Posted by: Gary Hahn | January 9, 2008 4:57 AM
Friends,
I would ask you to re-read the article. The Rev. is careful to say "in as much as possible." Moreover, he argues that there are causes that just war theory is applicable, war may be a necessary response but not the first one. Second, the question about the Jesus ethic as not being a national ethic has been argued by Reinhold Niebuhr. Namely, there is a challenge to ask nations to hold to the Jesus ethic which seems more for individuals. The tension is clear and I think that's why he mentions just war and resistance of tyrants as options.
A bout Romans 13 this hermeneutic needs to be re-examined. The writer of Romans asks us to obey the law but I will remind you that elsewhere Peter says (Acts) it is better to obey God rather than man (people). What this means that we are called to obey the law when it does not violate Christian principles or conscience. For example, segregation was the law in the South but it needed to be violated for the sake of Christian witness. Slavery was the law in many countries (there is still slavery today) for a long-time but Christian abolitionists violated the law for the sake of Christian witness, part of the song of Amazing Grace speaks to this. In many countries speaking and sharing the gospel is against the law still Christian's witness despite the rulers in authority over them.
Last, non-violent resistance is resistance and standing up for one believes. Jesus, M.L. King Jr, Gandhi, St.Paul, and the early christian martyrs to name just a few were not folding there hands doing nothing. Non-violence is not remaining silent it is a response that invites others to consider another way. Christ chose not to call legions of angels to defend him on the cross. This being said the article prays for peaceful alternatives while recognizing that this may not always be possible.
Posted by: Peaceful | January 9, 2008 8:46 AM
Posted by: Ashpenaz | January 8, 2008 11:53 PM
How can we pray for peace when nations are nowhere commanded to be at peace with each other?
But where is the UN in all of this? Should they not be on the front line demanding that people be peacful. Why are the Blue Helmets not out there bringing conflict to an end. What is the UN doing in the Blakins and in the Mideast - are they making a difference for peace in those regions?
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | January 9, 2008 9:08 AM
"..."...let us model peace, in as much as we are able."
When we exhaust this appeal, when we live it out, when we enact it in the way the article suggests, it, we will be at a different spot than we are now in relationship and understanding; which will lead to different words, better dialogue, and more creative action.
How about if we respond to the appeal? I'll take the specific suggestion of 'how I pick up the phone' today.
Would you join me?
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | January 9, 2008 9:21 AM
Friends:
The article is about Christians and peace, irregardless if they are from the Americas, Europe,Asia, Africa, Australia, etc.,. It is not saying that it is simply a US imperative or a UN imperative nor is it saying these entities should not engage in peacemaking. It is saying that wherever there are Christians they should engage in peacemaking, "in so far as it is possible." The article also acknowledges that there are differences of understanding how peace should be achieved. It highlights that a rush to violence should not be the first or only option.
The article is clear it's a prayer for Christian peacemakers (wherever they are on the globe; the UN, the USA, Africa, Latin America, Asia, Europe, etc). Christians should remember that this is a call beyond national boundaries that would require the efforts of many from all over.
Posted by: Peaceful | January 9, 2008 9:30 AM
Many Christians think that war and violence are good, and that Jesus will return as a general leading troops. Look at the last book in the Left Behind series with Jesus leading armies through bodies and blood. These Christians do not see peace between nations as being commanded anywhere in Scripture. In fact, peace undermines Jesus' ultimate goal of triumphing over nonbelievers--look at the Christians who support war in Iran. How do you answer that?
Posted by: Ashpenaz | January 9, 2008 3:08 PM
Many Christians think that war and violence are good, and that Jesus will return as a general leading troops. Look at the last book in the Left Behind series with Jesus leading armies through bodies and blood. These Christians do not see peace between nations as being commanded anywhere in Scripture. In fact, peace undermines Jesus' ultimate goal of triumphing over nonbelievers--look at the Christians who support war in Iran. How do you answer that?
Posted by: Ashpenaz | January 9, 2008 3:09 PM
Friends:
I respond by saying that reading the book of Revelation, which I suspect that LaHaye and Jenkins read quite differently them me, is about hope to an oppressed people. Second, it is written to a historically oppressed group of churches in Asia Minor in the first century. There is much metaphorical, allegorical language in the text, as is customary of Apocalyptic literature, that needs to be explained in ways that do not foster a violent ideology.
Also I would add that Christians should be careful not to confuse their own political ideologies for Christ's kingdom. This means that if (an if that requires too much explanation for this small forum) in the end Jesus is leading armies, let it be him, until then we should wait. By waiting we can assure ourselves of not conflating our purposes with the purposes of God. I recommend some books about the Gospel and Imperial ideology a-la Richard Horsley, John Dominic Crossan, etc.
One final note, there are times that just war may be necessary (the article alludes to this) but this needs much examination a-la Augustine and others.
Posted by: Peaceful | January 10, 2008 3:51 PM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?