Tom Mangattuthazhe
The biblical vision of the world, created and sustained by God, scarred by sin, redeemed in Christ and destined for the kingdom, is at the heart of our religious heritage. In other words, the Catholic social tradition is a mix of biblical, theological, and philosophical elements which are brought to bear upon the concrete problems of the day.
This vision requires elaboration, explanation, and application in each age; the important task of theology is to penetrate ever more adequately the nature of the biblical vision of peace and relate it to a world not yet at peace. Consequently, the teaching about peace examines both how to construct a more peaceful world and how to assess the phenomenon of violence concretely in our situation of Northeast India.
Guiding Principles
At the center of the Church’s teaching on peace and at the center of all Catholic social teaching are the transcendence of God and the dignity of the human person. The human person is the clearest reflection of God’s presence in the world; all of the Church’s work in pursuit of both justice and peace is designed to protect and promote the dignity of every person. For each person not only reflects God, but is the expression of God’s creative work and the meaning of Christ’s redemptive ministry.
Role of the Church in Peace Building
Recognition of the Church’s responsibility to join with others in the work of peace is a major force behind the call today to develop a theology of peace. Building peace within and among communities is the work of many individuals and institutions; it is the fruit of ideas and decisions taken in the political, cultural, economic, social, military, and legal sectors of life, We believe that the Church, as a community of faith and social institution, has a proper, necessary, and distinctive part to play in the pursuit of peace.
The distinctive contribution of the Church flows from her religious nature and ministry. The Church is called to be, in a unique way, the instrument of the kingdom of God in history. Since peace is one of the signs of that kingdom present in the world, the Church fulfills part of her essential mission by making the peace of the kingdom more visible in our time.
Because peace, like the kingdom of God itself, is both a divine gift and a human work, the Church should continually pray for the gift and share in the work. We are called to be a Church at the service for peace, precisely because peace is one manifestation of God’s word and work in our midst.
Ingredients of peace theology
A theology of peace should ground the task of peacemaking solidly in the biblical vision of the kingdom of God, then place it centrally in the ministry of the Church. It should specify the obstacles in the way of peace, as these are understood theologically and in the social and political sciences. It should both identify the specific contributions a community of faith can make to the work of peace and relate these to the wider work of peace pursued by other groups and institutions in society. Finally, a theology of peace must include a message of hope. The vision of hope must be available to all, but one source of its content should be found in a Church at the service of peace.
Peace and the Kingdom of God
For us the sacred scriptures provide the foundation for confronting violence and peace today. Any use of scripture in this area is conditioned by three factors. First, the term “peace” has been understood in different ways at various times and in various contexts. For example, peace can refer to an individual’s sense of well-being or security, or it can mean the cessation of armed hostility, producing an atmosphere in which communities can relate to each other and settle conflicts without resorting to the use of arms. For men and women of faith, peace will imply a right relationship with God, which entails forgiveness, reconciliation, and union. Finally, the scriptures point to eschatological peace, a final, full realization of God’s salvation when all creation will be made whole. Among these various meanings, the last two predominate in the scriptures and provide direction to the first two.
Old Testament Notions of Peace
In the O.T notions of peace must be understood in the light of Israel’s relation to God. Peace is always seen as a gift from God and as fruit of God’s saving activity. Secondly, the individual’s personal peace is not greatly stressed. The well-being and freedom from fear which result from God’s love are viewed primarily as they pertain to the community and its unity and harmony. Furthermore, this unity and harmony extend to all of creation; true peace implied a restoration of the right order not just among peoples, but within all of creation.
If Israel obeyed God’s laws, God would dwell among them. “I will walk among you and will be your God and you shall be my people” (Lv. 26:12). God would strengthen the people against those who opposed them and would give peace in the land. The description of life in these circumstances witnesses to unity among peoples and creation, to freedom from fear and to security (Lv. 26:3-16). The right relationship between the people and God was grounded in and expressed by a covenantal union. The covenant bound the people to God in fidelity and obedience; God was also committed in the covenant, to be present with the people, to save them, to lead them to freedom. Peace is a special characteristic of this covenant; when the prophet Ezekiel looked to the establishment of the new, truer covenant, he declared that God would establish an everlasting covenant of peace with the people (Ezk. 37:26).
Ezekiel, who promised a covenant of peace, condemned in no uncertain terms the false prophets who said there was peace in the land while idolatry and injustice continued (Ezk. 13:16). Jeremiah followed in this tradition and berated those who “healed the wounds of the people lightly” and proclaimed peace while injustice and infidelity prevailed (Jer. 6:14; 8:10-12). Jeremiah and Isaiah both condemned the leaders when, against true security, they depended upon their own strength or alliances with other nations rather than trusting in God (Is. 7:1-9; 30:14; Jer. 37:10). The lament of Isaiah 48:18 makes clear the connection between justice, fidelity to God’s law, and peace; he cries out: “O that you had hearkened to my commandments! Then your peace would have been like a river, and your righteousness like the waves of the sea.”
New Testament Notions of Peace
We believe that Jesus is the messiah or Christ so long awaited. God’s servant (Mt. 12:18 -21), prophet and more than prophet (Jn. 4:19-26), the one in whom the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, through whom all things in heaven and on earth were reconciled to God, Jesus made peace by the blood of the cross (Col. 1:19-20). The characteristics of the shalom of the Old Testament (gift from God, inclusive of all creation, grounded in salvation and covenantal fidelity, inextricably bound up with justice) are present in the New Testament traditions.
There is no notion of a warrior God who will lead the people in an historical victory over its enemies in the New Testament. The only war spoken of is found in apocalyptic images of the final moments, especially as they are depicted in the Book of Revelation. Here war stands as image of the eschatological struggle between God and Satan. It is a war in which the Lamb is victorious (Rv. 17:14).
Military images appear in terms of the preparedness which one must have for the coming trials (Lk. 14:31 ; 22:35-38). Swords appear in the New Testament as an image of division (Mt. 12:34; Heb. 4:12); they are present at the arrest of Jesus, and he rejects their use (Lk. 22:51 and parallel texts); weapons are transformed in Ephesians, when the Christians are urged to put on the whole armor of God which includes the breastplate of righteousness, the helmet of salvation, the sword of the Spirit, “having shod your feet in the equipment of the gospel of peace” (Eph. 6:10-17; cf. I Thes. 5:8-9). Soldiers, too, are present in the New Testament. They are at the crucifixion of Jesus, of course, but they are also recipients of the baptism of John, and one centurion receives the healing of his servant (Mt. 8:5-13 and parallel texts; cf. Jn. 4:4653).
Jesus challenged everyone to recognize in him the presence of the reign of God and to give themselves over to that reign. Such a radical change of allegiance was difficult for many to accept and families found themselves divided, as if by a sword. Hence, the gospels tell us that Jesus said he came not to bring peace but rather the sword (Mt. 10:34). The peace which Jesus did not bring was the false peace which the prophets had warned against. The sword which he did bring was that of the division caused by the word of God which, like a two-edged sword, “pierces to the division of soul and spirit, of joints and marrow, and discerns the thoughts and intentions of the heart ” (Heb. 4:12).
Jesus advocated the reign of God
Jesus proclaimed the reign of God in his words and made it present in his actions. His words begin with a call to conversion and a proclamation of the arrival of the kingdom. “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent, and believe in the gospel” (Mk. 1:15; Mt. 4:17). The call to conversion was at the same time an invitation to enter God’s reign. Jesus went beyond the prophets’ cries for conversion when he declared that, in him, the reign of God had begun and was in fact among the people (Lk. 17:20-21; 12:32).
His words, especially as they are preserved for us in the Sermon on the Mount, describe a new reality in which God’s power is manifested and the longing of the people is fulfilled. In God’s reign the poor are given the kingdom, the mourners are comforted, the meek inherit the earth, those hungry for righteousness are satisfied, the merciful know mercy, the pure see God, the persecuted know the kingdom, and peacemakers are called the children of God (Mt. 5:3-10).
The resurrection of Jesus is the sign to the world that God indeed does reign, does give life in death, and that the love of God is stronger even than death (Rom. 8:36-39). Only in light of this, the fullest demonstration of the power of God’s reign, can Jesus’ gift of peace - a peace which the world cannot give (Jn. 14:27) - be understood. Jesus gives that peace to his disciples, to those who had witnessed the helplessness of the crucifixion and the power of the resurrection (Jn. 20:19, 20, 26). The peace which he gives to them as he greets them as their risen Lord is the fullness of salvation. It is the reconciliation of the world and God ( Rom. 5:1-2; Col. 1:20); the restoration of the unity and harmony of all creation which the Old Testament spoke of with such longing. Because the walls of hostility between God and humankind were broken down in the life and death of the true, perfect servant, union and well-being between God and the world were finally fully possible (Eph. 2:13-22; Gal. 3:28).
As his first gift to his followers, the risen Jesus gave his gift of peace. This gift permeated the meetings between the risen Jesus and his followers (Jn. 20:19-29). So intense was that gift and so abiding was its power that the remembrance of that gift and the daily living of it became the hallmark of the community of faith. Simultaneously, Jesus gave his spirit to those who followed him. These two personal and communal gifts are inseparable. In the spirit of Jesus the community of believers was enabled to recognize and to proclaim the savior of the world.
Gifted with Jesus’ own spirit, they could recognize what God had done and know in their own lives the power of the One who creates from nothing. The early Christian communities knew that this power and the reconciliation and peace which marked it were not yet fully operative in their world. They struggled with external persecution and with interior sin, as do all people. But their experience of the spirit of God and their memory of the Christ who was with them nevertheless enabled them to look forward with unshakable confidence to the time when the fullness of God’s reign would make itself known in the world. At the same time, they knew that they were called to be ministers of reconciliation (2 Cor. 5:19-20), people who would make the peace which God had established visible through the love and the unity within their own communities.
The Notions Peace in Church tradition
The Catholic tradition has always understood the meaning of peace in positive terms. Peace is both a gift of God and a human work. It must be constructed on the basis of central human values: truth, justice, freedom, and love.
Peace is not merely the absence of war. Nor can it be reduced solely to the maintenance of a balance of power between enemies. Nor is it brought about by dictatorship. Instead, it is richly and appropriately called “an enterprise of justice” (Is. 32:17). Peace results from that harmony built into human society by its divine founder and actualized by men as they thirst after ever greater justice.
Moved by the example of Jesus’ life and by his teaching, some Christians have from the earliest days of the Church committed themselves to a nonviolent lifestyle. Some understood the gospel of Jesus to prohibit all killing. Some affirmed the use of prayer and other spiritual methods as means of responding to enmity and hostility.
In the centuries between the fourth century and our own day, the theme of Christian non-violence has echoed and re-echoed, sometimes more strongly, sometimes more faintly. One of the great non-violent figures in those centuries was St. Francis of Assisi. Besides making personal efforts on behalf of reconciliation and peace, Francis stipulated that laypersons who became members of his Third Order were not “to take up lethal weapons, or bear them about, against anybody.”
The vision of Christian non-violence is not passive about injustice and the defense of the rights of others; it rather affirms and exemplifies what it means to resist injustice through non-violent methods.
In the twentieth century, prescinding from the non-Christian witness of a Mahatma Gandhi and its worldwide impact, the nonviolent witness of such figures as Dorothy Day and Martin Luther King has had profound impact upon the life of the Church.
Fifty-four years ago Mahatma Gandhi was shot in New Delhi. In eulogies to him General Douglas McArthur said that he proved a way to change the world without battle, and England’s warrior Lord Mountbatten said that after Gandhi, war was obsolete. Gandhi based his ethics on Jesus’. And then Martin Luther King, Jr. learned from Gandhi, and Jimmy Carter learned human rights from King and we sit here in this room with folks who work in education and law and heath care and family life and business and government and more and perhaps we can disperse new life, too. Perhaps this seed is spreading already.
Contemporary Challenges
Even a brief examination of peace in the scriptures makes it clear that they do not provide us with detailed answers to the specifics of the questions which we face today. For example they do not speak specifically of nuclear war or nuclear weapons, for these were beyond the imagination of the communities in which the scriptures were formed. The sacred texts do, however, provide us with urgent direction when we look at today’s concrete realities.
A moment’s visit to this theology won’t solve all of the questions of peace forever. A single sermon here won’t be the voice for all of us. Some issues have been with us since the time of Isaiah and beyond. But our voices are important. Our ethics, our faith, are important. Our prayers for peace and wholeness are important, and our humility, service, and hope are important. The word comfort that the prophet quotes today means “strength with.” Comfort means strength with. All I pray for is God’s strength be with us, that we may work for peace. All I pray is that we try.
Examples of Peace Ventures
Whether peace is to be reached only after unimaginable horrors precipitated by humanity’s stubborn clinging to certain set of principles, or is to be embraced as an act of consultative will, is a choice before all of us. However, barriers persist. Doubts, misconceptions, prejudices, suspicions and narrow self-interest beset peoples in their relations one to another.
We can regard the current calamitous condition of our region as a natural phase in an organic process leading ultimately and irresistibly to the unification of the human race in a single social order.
The human race, as a distinct, organic unit, has passed through evolutionary stages analogous to the stages of infancy and childhood in the lives of its individual members, and is now in the culminating period of its turbulent adolescence approaching its long-awaited coming of age.
A candid acknowledgement that prejudice, war and exploitation have been the expression of immature stages in a vast historical process and that the human race is today experiencing the unavoidable tumult which marks its collective coming of age is not a reason for despair but a prerequisite to undertaking the stupendous enterprise of building a peaceful world. We are convinced that such an enterprise is possible, that the necessary constructive forces for such endeavors do exist, that unifying social structures can be erected. Hence, It is out of a deep sense of spiritual and moral duty that we are impelled at this opportune moment to invite your attention to the need of peace in the region.
Trends have been accompanied by a strengthening of regional organizations such as the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) the European Community (EC), the Organization of American States (OAS) and the Organization for African Unity (OAU). Since 1989, the United Nations, itself has begun to occupy a much more central position in world affairs although it is currently afflicted by a crisis of over expectations and under-resourcing.
The promise and ingredients of peace building and conflict transformation
(1) It should be aimed at channelling the energy generated by conflict in constructive, nonviolent rather than destructive and violent directions. Its aim is not to eliminate conflict but to utilize conflictual processes for generative and positive change (which may be relatively spontaneous or directed).
(2) Conflict transformation occurs when violent conflict ceases and/or is expressed in nonviolent ways and when the original structural sources (economic, social, political, military, and cultural) of the conflict have been changed in some way or other.
(3) Conflicts can be transformed, by normal socio-political processes by the parties acting alone, by expert third party intervenors and parties acting together and/or by judicious advocacy and political intervention. Conflict transformation should incorporate a wide cross-section of political decision-makers, children, youth, likeminded citizens, development agencies, religious organizations and social movements. Too often, in the past, conflict transformation has been conceptualized largely as a political problem. It has to be cast as a social and economic problem as well if sustainable structural change is to occur.
(4) Such conflict transformation can take place at any stage of the escalatory cycle. If preventive peace building does not take place at the first sign of trouble and problems remain unaddressed, then transformational processes, in the early stages of an evolving conflict, may take the form of early warning and the application of suitable preventive measures.
(5) The problems/conflicts must be dealt with as early as possible, when they are relatively tractable. We need not only devote more attention to early warning of potential problems, but also develop the will to start addressing them before they go critical.
(6) Everyone needs to learn how to resolve conflicts and problems in a nonviolent and creative fashion.
Our tasks ahead
1. Develop nonviolent intervention as a force.
2. Identify people who work for peace.
3. Recruit, organize and train volunteers. All recruitment must be individual and voluntary. Military training does not attract the same people or bring out of them the same human potential as those enjoy who go into a situation with empathy and courage as their only protection. So the two crucial differences between what we might call classical peacekeeping and nonviolent peacekeeping are, first that nonviolent peacekeepers are unarmed and second that they want to be. This, to paraphrase Gandhiji again, makes all the difference. It implies a different kind of human relationship and creates an entirely different climate of possibility.
4. Select an intervention, and go to work. At the moment small bands of volunteers are rushing off to help wherever they feel most pain, but it would benefit history much more in the long run if they would pull together and concentrate on one place where disaster can be decisively halted.
5. Peace keeping is cheaper than war, but nonviolent peacekeeping is cheaper still. It requires even less equipment, it is done by idealistic volunteers who love their work, and it is remarkably efficient. The volunteers in Nicaragua in 1983 who apparently pacified Jalapa, a war zone on the Honduran border, for as long as they remained, constituted a ‘brigade’ of ten people.
6. World history has taught us never to underestimate the effectiveness of right means coupled with right ends.
7. Formation of peace clubs and citizens committees.
Tom Mangattuthazhe,
Bishop’s House Diphu.
