Peace Messenger

Ryan Bell on "Announcing & Enacting Peace in an Age of Empire"

Hollywood Adventist Church Pastor Ryan Bell sets forth the biblical mandate for peacemaking at the newly-launched ReligiousLiberty.TV:

God’s shalom is perhaps the central theme of God’s creation restoring work; the central metaphor throughout scripture for the complete wholeness of creation, which God is restoring....

So, peacemaking – announcing and enacting peace in our world – is evangelism. It is bearing the good news to a world awash in violence, war, poverty, disease and every other injustice. The good news of God’s kingdom envisioned by the prophets (Isaiah most notably), incarnate in the person of Jesus and taught by him in passages like the Beatitudes, is a good news of God’s shalom gaining the upper hand in the world....

...[B]eing peacemakers in God’s kingdom today means speaking and acting for justice for the poor, the outcast, and the war-torn. It means speaking out again an unjust war and actively working to bring that war to an end. It means speaking truth to power and holding power to account for the righteousness that God envisions. In short, being peacemakers in God’s kingdom means being radically committed to overcoming evil with good.

Michael Peabody edits the new ReligiousLiberty.TV site, described as "a leading independent online resource for news, information, commentary, and insights on contemporary issues involving the free exercise and establishment clauses of the United States Constitution."

Adventist Protests Extra-Judicial Killings & Environmental Destruction in Marathon Walk

From "Pastor to walk for an end to killings," by Eldie Aguirre and Orlando Dinoy, Inquirer.net, June 14, 2008; forwarded by Monte Sahlin:

DIGOS CITY, Davao del Sur, Philippines -- A 58-year-old Seventh Day Adventist pastor has launched a walk from his hometown in Matanao, Davao del Sur to Aparri in Cagayan Valley to dramatize his call for an end to unabated extrajudicial killings of journalists, militants, and suspected criminals, plus the massive environment destruction.

Edervin Samson of Barangay (Village) Camanchiles set off alone on Thursday and has been in contact with his family through a mobile phone....

"I wanted to stop the practice of extra-judicial killings, which is against the law of God, and to encourage people to renew their faith in Him," Samson told reporters when he passed by here on Thursday.

The trek to Aparri and back is a new endeavor according to the pastor and is the most daring walk he made in his life as marathoner. But he said his past experience in marathons would surely help him in attaining his goal....

"Humans are only stewards of this planet and we don't have any right to kill people or destroy the environment that God has entrusted to us," he said.

Samson said he would be stopping by selected areas from time to time to preach the Gospel....

Christ Commands Talking With Adversaries

The evangelical Christians of the Matthew 5 Project believe that their Lord's teaching about making peace with adversaries by talking (Matthew 5:21-26) is "a command, not an option," and that, in view of "Christ's lordship over all areas of life," they must follow it with regard to international conflict.

Their statement develops seven principles for "national security through international cooperation," leading them to advocate direct U.S.-Iranian negotiations without preconditions:

Ever since the Iranian hostage crisis during the Carter administration, the U. S. government has refused to talk with the Iranian government. But in May, 2006, President Bush and his aides wisely reached the decision to offer conditional talks to Iran. “Mr. Bush's search for a new option was driven, they say, by concern that the path he was on two months ago would inevitably force one of two potentially disastrous outcomes: an Iranian bomb, or an American attack on Iran's facilities.” Therefore, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice announced on May 31, 2006 that the United States would join multilateral talks with Iran on its nuclear program “once Iran suspends disputed nuclear activities. Kazem Jalali, spokesman for the Iranian parliament's Foreign Policy and National Security Committee, said the U.S. move might be viewed positively in Tehran if preconditions were dropped.”

To give in to the U.S. demand that they suspend enrichment of uranium even before talks begin is very difficult in a culture that values honor. It would mean giving up the right to enrich uranium for generating electricity—a right universally recognized for other nations. David Isenberg writes in Defense News: “After all, nearly 30 years after the 1979 revolution, we need to consider what the policy of no official U.S. dialogue with Iran has achieved in terms of influencing Iranian behavior. In a word: nothing.”Howard Baker, Secretary of State in the first Bush administration, pointed out that despite major disagreements, the United States and the Soviet Union talked directly many times, helping us avoid nuclear war and achieve a peaceful end to the Cold War. Former U. S. foreign policy officials, both Republican and Democratic, including Zbigniew Brzezinski, William Perry, Henry Kissinger, Madeline Albright, Richard N. Haass, and Richard L. Armitage, support direct US-Iranian unconditional negotiations. 59% of Americans support negotiations even if Iran refuses to suspend enrichment....

Jesus is the realist. Talking with Iran, as with Libya and North Korea, may bring surprising peace. Or at least avoid horrible war perpetrated on millions of God’s loving creation—mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, and children....

The statements endorsers include Glenn Stassen and David Gushee, co-authors of Kingdom Ethics: Following Jesus in Contemporary Context (InterVarsity Press, 2003).

Read the statement at the Matthew 5 Project web site, and if convicted, add your endorsement!

Its Time for Talking With Iran

The cover story of the June 17 issue of the Christian Century deals with U.S. policy toward Iran, and on its editorial page, the interdenominational biweekly also makes the case for direct negotiations between the two nations:

Because a military strike would be disastrous and economic sanctions don't seem to be working, now is the logical time to open negotiations between the U.S. and Iran, much like the talks that the U.S. held with China in the 1970s....

Diplomacy offers no assured outcome.  But one thing the U.S. should have learned from its misadventure in Iraq is that military interventions don't have assured outcomes either.  Military efforts can exact an enormous price in human life and national treasure while unleashing new, uncontrollable forces of chaos.  Now is the time to send a clear and unequivocal message to political leaders regarding an attack on Iran: Don't do it.  Not in our name, not with our tax dollars, and not with the lives of our men and women.

Iranian Perspectives

Reporting on a visit to Iran, Century associate editor Richard Kauffman ("Inside Iran") cites Iranian philosopy professor Muhammad Legenhausen's summary of how Iranians view recent positions taken by the U.S. government:

According to Legenhausen, Bush's "axis of evil" speech baffled most Iranians.  Iranians had helped the U.S. against the Taliban in Afghanistan after 9/11.  Also Bush's speech came at a time when Mohammed Khatami was president of the country.  A reform-minded leader, Khatami was open to the West and was trying to advance human rights within Iran, especially for women.  When Bush included Iran as part of the axis of evil, a typical Iranian response was: "If this is what we get from the U.S. when we have a reform-minded president, then perhaps what we need is a more aggressive and nationalistic kind of leader."  Ahmadinejad was voted in at the next election.

Moreover, many Iranians think that the U.S. and it allies are inconsistent in their approach to Iran.  When Khatami was president, Western leaders said that he wasn't the real power in Iran; the real power rests with the supreme leader.  But now that the radical Ahmadinejad is in power, Western countries are treating him as if he, not the supreme leader, is the one with ultimate power.

Kauffman continues:

Behind all discussions of Iran are some inconvenient truths about U.S. foreign policy.  First among them is the fact that in 1953 a CIA-sponsored coup brought down the government of Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadeq, a popular and democratically elected leader.  Mossadeq's crime in U.S. eyes was to nationalize Iran's petroleum industry....

The U.S. helped put the shah in power and for 25 years supported the monarch, who ruled with an iron fist, suppressing or killing his opponents.  The shah's notorious secret police, SAVAK, were aided by American and Israeli intelligence....

Americans also tend to forget that the U.S. supported Saddam Hussein and Iraq in that country's eight-year war with Iran in the 1980s.  Thanks to U.S. aid, Iraq acquired superior weaponry.  Iran tried to make up for that deficiency by the sheer number of its armed forces.  At least 500,000 Iranians died in the war with Iraq....Iranians have not forgotten that the U.S. backed Iraq in this effort, nor that Saddam used chemical and biological weapons against their people.

An informative, realistic and constructive summary of "Eight points about Iran's nuclear program" by David Cortright of the Joan B. Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies at the University of Notre Dame accompanies Kauffman's piece in a sidebar.

Dialogue Discusses Adventism and Peacemaking

Peacemaking is the theme of the new issue of Dialogue, the journal published in five languages for Adventist college and university students throughout the world. In the lead article, Stefan Hoeschele (pictured below), theology professor at Friedensau Adventist University, Germany, discusses eight courses of action a believer guided by biblical principles might take when faced with the dilemma of war.  An excerpt:

As a faith community, we must speak peace.  Indeed, as Adventists we have done the right thing in issuing several statements on peace.  In one of them ("Peace," 1985), we affirm: "The Seventh-day Adventist Church urges every nation to beat its 'swords into plowshares' and its 'spears into pruning hooks' (Isaiah 2:4)....In a world filled with hate and struggle, a world of ideological strife and military conflicts, Seventh-day Adventists desire to be known as peacemakers and work for worldwide justice and peace under Christ as the head of a new humanity."

Such a stance for peace may involve speaking out whenever countries engage in wars.  We cannot support the use of violence, and we should make this clear.  There can be no compromise on this matter.  As responsible citizens of the state here and the Kingdom of God, our unequivocal position should be promotion of peace, rejection of military actions, and rebuking of those who advocate violence.  Of course, in pursuing such a course, we must be "wise as serpents, and harmless as doves" (Matthew 10:16, KJV).  But we should make it clear that the Seventh-day Adventist Church is a peace church.

The issue also includes an editorial on principles of peacemaking by Martin Feldbush, associate editor and director of Adventist Chaplaincy Ministries; an exploration of peacemaking in Adventist history by Doug Morgan, and Hee Jae Im's account of his refusal to bear arms, which led to his court martial and imprisonment in South Korea (see the previous post).

My Refusal to Bear Arms

In "Dreaming of a World Without War" (Dialogue, Vol. 20, No. 1, 2008) Hee Jae Im tells the story of his refusal to continue carrying a weapon in the South Korean military.  As a result of this stand, he was sentenced in 2003 to an eighteen-month prison term, with an additional 73 days of military imprisonment. He describes his struggle with the issue after reporting to the Nonsan Basic Training Center:

The very notion of conscientious objection to carrying a weapon had been a sensitive issue among Seventh-day Adventists.  In 2002, a significant number of conscientious objectors were found among our church members in South Korea.  One of my friends, Young Chul Yoon, was already serving a two-and-a-half year sentence for refusing to carry.  I began to ponder seriously about the social and personal consequences that I must face should I choose to take the same narrow path by refusing to carry arms.  I toiled and struggled with this decision because I lacked the confidence to carry out my conviction.  I kept reading the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy books that were available in the military training center.  I experienced greater mental agony as I held the Bible in one hand and a gun in the other....

After basic training, Hee Jae Im was assigned to the Wontong base in Gangwon Province, a place of tense encounters and occassional shooting between South and North Korean soldiers. Though not without difficulty, he was able to resolve the issue of Sabbath-keeping with his commanding officer:

As the Sabbath-keeping issue was resolved, there still remained the issue regarding my noncombatant army service.  As I opened the Bible and read one of the commandments, "Love you neighbor as yourself," I could not help but correlate that verse to our North Korean neighbor....I sincerely prayed that God would guide me in the right direction in this matter.  Soon thereafter, I came across a passage from The Great Controversy that helped my crystallize my decision. "When warned against going unarmed among savage and hostile tribes, he [Dr. Wolff] declared himself 'provided with arms' -- prayer, zeal for Christ, and confidence in His help.  'I am also,' he said, 'provided with the love of God, and my neighbor in my heart, and the Bible is in my hand'" (p. 361).  Upon reading this, my heart was pounding and I cried out: "God, is this what you want me to do?  Are you telling me to put down my gun?"  The phrase "love your neighbor,' the North Koreans, kept echoing in my mind.  After three days of much agony and prayer, I finally came to realize that in God's entire creation only human beings worry about their life.  I made a decision not to protect myself with any weapon any longer.  "God, I will surrender myself to you.  Please accept me and help me."

For a report on Hee Jae Im's subsequent court martial and imprisonment, see "Adventist Sentenced to 18 Months in Prison for Conscienctious Objection," Adventist News Network, 19 March 2003.  He is now a student at the Graduate School of Theology, Sahmyook University, Seoul, Korea.

Cluster Bomb Ban Approved; UK to Destroy its Arsenal and ask U.S. to Remove its Stockpile from British Bases

BBC News report, May 29, 2008:

More than 100 nations have reached an agreement on a treaty which would ban current designs of cluster bombs.

Diplomats meeting in Dublin agreed to back an international ban on the use of the controversial weapons following 10 days of talks.

But some of the world's main producers and stockpilers - including the US, Russia and China - oppose the move.

Prime Minister Gordon Brown (above) called it a "big step forward to make the world a safer place".

He announced earlier that Britain would be taking cluster bombs out of service....

The Guardian newspaper reports further:

The US will no longer be able to stockpile cluster bombs at its military bases in Britain under government proposals for an international ban on the controversial weapons, it emerged last night.

As diplomats from more than 100 states unanimously passed a treaty banning the use of cluster bombs around the world, it emerged that British ministers are prepared to go further.

The government has agreed to scrap the two types of cluster weapon in the armoury of British forces, but it will also ask the US to get rid of its cluster bombs based here, and it will no longer ask for a "phasing out" period for its newest cluster munition - the M73, which is attached to Apache attack helicopters.

(Richard Norton-Taylor, "U.S. Cluster Bombs to be Banned from UK").

America AWOL on Cluster Bombs

The U.S. is the world's largest producer, stockpiler, and user of cluster bombs, and is skipping the current negotiations in Dublin on a global treating to ban this particularly vicious type of munition. More than 100 governments, including all the major NATO allies, are participating in the talks.  The U.S. is not taking part, but is pressuring allies to weaken the treaty, claiming that a ban would undermine joint military operations with allies.  Lora Lumpe reports at Foreign Policy in Focus:

Cluster weapons open in mid-air dispersing dozens to hundreds of small submunitions over an area that can be as large as several football fields. According to the most comprehensive research to date, the vast majority of confirmed casualties from this type of weapon have been civilians. In the past 10 years, the United States has used cluster bombs in civilian-populated areas of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Kosovo. These weapons also have an established track record of killing and injuring U.S. soldiers. During Operation Desert Storm, U.S. cluster submunitions were responsible for more U.S. troop casualties (80) than any Iraqi weapons system.

“Cluster munitions do not know when the war has ended,” said Mark Engman, Director of Public Policy and Advocacy at the U.S. Fund for UNICEF. “Children stumble over them long after the conflict has ended or pick them up thinking that they are toys.”

The treaty will prohibit use, production, and export of cluster munitions that cause unacceptable harm to civilians. It will also require the destruction of stockpiles and provide assistance to victims and affected communities....

Last year Congress passed a one-year moratorium on exports of cluster munitions. Congress can help move the United States closer toward the position of the world community and its major military allies by supporting the Cluster Munitions Civilian Protection Act. This draft law would prohibit the U.S. military from using cluster bombs in areas that are normally populated by civilians, and it would prohibit the use of weapons that leave behind an unacceptably large number of landmine-like submunitions....  more

More information on encouraging congressional action on cluster bombs from the Friends Committee on National Legislation.

Adventists at Envision 08

Adventist peace activists and bloggers Ryan Bell and Johnny Ramirez have both recently posted information about Envision 08, a major conference on Christian engagement in the public square, June 8-10 in Princeton, New Jersey.  The conference promises to bring together sixty leading scholars, artists, activists and pastors and offers twenty "learning tracks." One of these, "Religious Pluralism and Christian Faith," will be co-lead by Samir Selmanovic of Faith House Manhattan and the renowned Miroslav Volf of Yale Divinity School. (Johnny's post also includes video of a lecture by Volf on 'How Do You "Un-Do' the Culture of War?")

Shane Claiborne, Brian McLaren, John Perkins, Ron Sider, Jim Wallis and many, many more noteworthies will be among the speakers and learning track leaders.  This should be an exceptionally enriching experience for those dedicated to following Christ in the public square.