18
2009
Peace by the Sword
An article by 
Today there is news that Russia is set to undertake a comprehensive rearmament programme in response to plans within Nato to expand into former Soviet states, allowing for a greater US military presence on the borders of Russia, including a missile shield across eastern Europe.
Russia’s rearmament is set to include a large upgrade of the army and navy and the provision of the most modern weapons, with a top priority on increasing and improving the nuclear arsenal.
Many will decry Russia’s move as an act of hostility and indeed, it is not an initiative I support, but it is entirely consistence with the underlying philosophy of political peace in our time. Peace in our time is largely based on balances of power between the world’s major players – America, Russia, China and increasingly, Europe. Within that group, America and Russia have been the most overt in their balancing tensions since World War II.
In order to avert aggression both sides seek to maintain a balance of might, thus causing a situation that effectively amounts to a projected stalemate. It plays out with those two countries right throughout the world. The most overt example is visible in the Middle East as America backs Israel and Russia backs Iran.
A move from Nato to increase its presence in former Soviet countries right on Russia’s border upsets that balance of power, thus in order to maintain the projected stalemate that gives the facade of peace, Russia must increase its show of power. It’s a game of chess where the world is the board and both sides do not wish for the other to gain the upper hand and in so doing, tip the game in their favour, leading to the eventual marginalization and loss of the weaker player.
We live in a world of fear where relative peace is obtained because everyone is scared to push the button because it could mean the end of the world as we know it and all players know that they could not win if such a thing would eventuate because everyone is armed up to the eyeballs. Is that really peace?
In the gospel of Matthew we are presented with the Beatitudes and one of them simply says “Blessed are the peacemakers” and the offering to the peacemaker is that “they will be called children of God.”
The word used for “peacemaker” is eirēnopoios and denotes someone who makes eirēnē. Eirēnē according to Strong’s denotes prosperity – quietness, rest and almost a sense of restoration or being at one. If we check the word for peace used amongst Hebrew culture we find the word/concept of “shâlôm”. Shâlôm is a much more encompassing word/concept than simply referring to the absence of violence. It refers to health, prosperity, friendliness, rest, safety, familiarity, happiness and most importantly, wholeness.
As Christians we are called to not only support such wholeness, but to be makers of it. It is easy to look around the world, see different situations and resign ourselves to a sense of fatalism or to even be given to lending our support to the “might makes right” attitude that props up the strengthening of military empire. This attitude amongst Christians was evidenced to me in a recent New Zealand Christian newspaper where one of the front page headlines referred to an area where it was believed in the article that peace will never exist there and the person who was the subject of the article was resigned to a fatalism that did not include the active engagement of peacemaking as described in the relevant Beatitude.
Fatalism that causes us to shrink back from active peacemaking where that peacemaking includes wholeness, restoration and the redeeming of broken relationships (eirēnē and shâlôm) has no place in the Christian life. We are called to be peacemakers even where the odds are stacked against us and we are called to actively engage the making of true peace, not the support of a “peace” that is simply the absence of violence where such an absence is only driven by fear. When engaging in such peacemaking, no part of the world should be immune from our activity and no part of the world should be seen as impossible.
Blessed are the eirēnē and shâlôm makers, for they shall be called children of God.
Related Posts
The USA – Sheriff or Satan- TEAR Fund Podcast: Flotilla Attacked
- The Controversy of Easter. The Crucifixion & Freedom.
- Lipton Ice Tea – Cool Your World with Electricitea
About the Author: Frank Ritchie
Frank is the Education and Advocacy Manager for TEAR Fund NZ. Frank is a licensed Minister in the Wesleyan Methodist Church of New Zealand and has a keen interest in biblical perspectives of Justice and how this connects to service to, with and for the poor, disadvantaged and marginalized people of the world.
17 Comments + Add Comment
Leave a comment
TEAR Fund New Zealand
Get Blog Updates Via Email
Recent Comments
- BuffCrIsoff on World’s Poorest Prove to be a Good Credit Risk
- hébergement de site internet on NZ Prostitution Law Review Committee: Report
- hoagsardell on Cyclone Aila in Bangladesh – Diary of a Humanitarian
- Twin Bed Frame on The Controversy of Easter. The Crucifixion & Freedom.
- Kelvin on Rebellious Media Conference
Blogroll
- Aid Watch
- Change.org
- Empire Remixed
- From Poverty to Power
- God's Politics
- Good Intentions are not Enough
- Just Comment
- Just.
- New Internationalist
- Restorative Justice
- Tax Justice Network
- The Distributist Review
- The Green New Deal Group
- The Thoughtful Campaigner
- Truth Dealer
- Wronging Rights
- ZNet – the spirit of resistance lives
Thank you for your discussion about the meanings of ‘eirene’ and ‘shalom’. They mean so much more than often thought…
Deb
Building bombs is not an “act of hostility”. Dropping them is.
I hear you Grant, but Russia seems to be interpreting increased military capability as at least posing a threat. It is that projection of threat that causes countries to arm themselves to the teeth.
The point of the post is that the peace that we have is not really peace, it is simply an absence of violence based on fear. To counter that “peace” I have given some thoughts on a greater sense of peace and the place I see in this for Christians as “peacemakers.”
The call for Christians to be peacemakers has nothing to do with a government’s obligation to provide security for its citizens. Jesus did not say “Blessed be the peacemaker” where the alternative to a peacemaker might have been the iron age equivalent of a Russian government with nuclear weapons.
Grant, I would be interested to hear what you think Jesus meant when he referred to “peacemakers” and what influence that should have in different spheres, ie the state political sphere?
Jesus spoke to the individual. He asked that where an offence was made upon the individual (that was of no criminal consequence) that the individual “turn the other cheek”. Jesus did not outline much in the way of how a government should act. Why would He need to when that had all been done previously?
The problem I have with your article is this: You imply that Jesus saying “Turn the other cheek” translates for governments as “Do not protect your citizens”.
This is not explicitly what you say, but in suggesting that building a bomb is a moral issue it is a direct consequence. Building bombs is not a moral issue any more than building cars is.
America, Russia and any other nation has every right, in fact every obligation, to provide security for their citizens.
Grant is my bro and i am talking to him on line. By the way i love your show and you rock
Uh, Bruce, I love you too, but I have no show … :nono:
LAdies and gentlemen I have, at long last, found a fan. I had such difficulty finding someone because my mother doesn’t know how to submit a comment.
Normal service can continue now as long as Bruce doesn’t get too carried away with his newfound ability to submit messages :noid:
This subject about the bible vrs Friends
I think freinds are by far more important than being able to read your bible. If you have good felowship with other belivers thin you will have more chance of reaching the world than if you know the bible inside out. Cause as you know the devil knows it well.
Bruce, leave the thinking to me, bro :thumb:
Bruce, thank you for the compliment and thanks for taking the time to read this blog.
Grant, I am appreciating your thoughts, but you didn’t really answer my last question, instead you are making assumptions about what I have said that are off the mark.
I really would love your thoughts on the last question (all assumptions aside), when Jesus said blessed be the peacemaker, what exactly was he saying and what sort of peacemaking was he referring to?
Once I’ve had the privilege of hearing your thoughts around that, I’ll delve into the issue of “making bombs” and “turning the other cheek”… the latter being something I did not go into for good reason.
Jesus spoke to the individual. He asked that where an offence was made upon the individual (that was of no criminal consequence) that the individual “turn the other cheek”. Jesus did not outline much in the way of how a government should act. Why would He need to when that had all been done previously?
ok… I’ll continue talking about it with you when you outline what Jesus meant with the Beatitude mentioned “blessed are the peacemakers”. Surely you think there’s more to it than simply turning the other cheek? My understanding sees it as being a little more pro-active whereas the the “turn the other cheek” seems deliberately and intently passive.
Uh .. are you going to turn this into a debate over our differing opinions of the implications of ONE WORD!? “εἰρηνοποιοὶ” only occurs once in the New Testament (Mat 5:9). There’s nothing to compare it to unless you are willing to look at the context. That context is “turn the other cheek”. Thus my replacement of “peacemaker” with the phrase “turn the other cheek” is perfectly reasonable. I think you’d be hard pressed to find a situation where “turn the other cheek” could not be considered the act of a peacemaker.
There might well be more to the term than we know, but, given no evidence for or against, it is pointless discussing it.
Seems to me that if you’re really interested in testing the implications of your article you’re going to have to look at the problems raised with it rather than looking to defend your presumed definition of the terms you’ve used.
If you want to divorce the word from its parts then you’re right, but the word “peace” that it points to appears plenty of times.
I completely and utterly think that turning the other cheek is an act of peacemaking… one act amongst many. I think the term noted is much broader than simply one act but denotes the pursuit and implementation of a whole way of life that leads to wholeness, restoration and in contrast to a peace that is simply an absence of violence, it necessarily reduces fear and tension.
I think you have wrongfully (probably due to my own lack of explanation) understood me to be saying that the state has no place seeking to defend its citizens. I don’t think that. What I am questioning and challenging is a state of peace driven by fear where peace exists simply because everyone is to scared to “press the button”. I was encouraging a sense of peace that drives much deeper than that and challenging us as Christians to pursue that deeper sense of peace… both at an individual and a collective level. The noting of the arming of the state was simply offered up as a contrast to the deeper, more whole sense of peace. With that in mind, I don’t think you and I disagree as much on this as we may be thinking.
In saying that, let me offer my thoughts on something you said earlier:
I understand your point here. It’s the same thought as “guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” At its most basic, this is true. But it is also true that increased supply and acquisition of guns increases the potential for people to kill using those guns.
Nation states seem to interpret that building of potential as acts of hostility… or at least as acts that can lead to hostility and they react accordingly. For example, Iraq wasn’t invaded because of a violent act of hostility against the US, it was invaded under the pretext of WMD’s and the threat those weapons posed.
The 1967 war in the Middle East was fueled by acts of aggression, but the spark was a move of the Egyptian army to strengthen itself on the borders of Israel because of threats made against Syria. Because of that, Israel hit out.
The US and Israel openly speak about aggression against Iran if it acquires the potential to build nuclear weapons. Such a move is seen as aggressive. Russia is responding to greater NATO presence on its borders because it sees such a thing as aggressive.
I’ve got no problems with a nation state seeking to defend itself, but it doesn’t take long to see the issue and the rather tentative situation the world sits in.
Jesus was speaking at an individual level and encouraging peacemaking, part of which involves turning the other cheek. As Christians we have a responsibility to pursue that at all levels, both individually and collectively. We have a chance, as individuals (who form a collective body) to have influence in our families, our communities and our nations. At a national level, the Christian voice has a chance to pursue and encourage a form of peace that does not rely on being armed to the teeth (whilst still allowing the state the right to defense) but rather encourages diplomacy and deep international relations.
I am not making a statement about justifications for war (that’s a whole other topic), I am encouraging an active pursuit and engagement of peace that goes deep and is not driven by fear.
Hopefully that makes a little more sense and fattens out the post
Well .. you’ve boiled away everything you were trying to say
What does all this mean? “At a national level, the Christian voice has a chance to pursue and encourage a form of peace that does not rely on being armed to the teeth (whilst still allowing the state the right to defense) but rather encourages diplomacy and deep international relations”
We aren’t to arm ourselves too much, but we are supposed to defend ourselves? How do you propose we go about that? Secretly stockpile weapons so that other countries do not get the wrong impression?
Your ideas leave no room for substantial action that might be helpful or reasonable. All you’re asking is that people stop building weapons because someone else might get upset.
Sorry, no deal.