Give Peace a Chance

[1] One of the earlier social statements of a youthful ELCA, the peace statement represents a hopeful church in a shifting time. The Soviet Union had only recently dissolved and the Berlin Wall fallen, the European Union was gaining traction, pro-democracy movements in China had proved to be powerful and visible. It seems as if perhaps totalitarian governments were losing influence and democratic grass-roots movements were gaining influence. The worry was that the U.S. would turn inward. Staff in the Department for Studies were an international group concerned about the tendency to focus overly on domestic issues. At that point, the church had ample resources and staff at the UN, the outward-looking memory of the Lutheran Council in the USA, and close ties with the LWF to orient it naturally outwards. One of the staff members of the department for studies had recently returned from teaching in Argentina and another was on her way to working in a similar capacity at the LWF—past and future were facing to the outside.

[2] How different the world seems now, with Vladimir Putin securely installed in the Kremlin, fundamentalists of all stripes creating fear, regular civil unrest in the United States, and an anxiety-provoking presidential election that provoked interest from international bodies. Despite the roseate setting in which the statement was written as compared to our current situation, the hopefulness does not ring false because whatever hope we give comes through hope in God rather than hope that human action or human nature will somehow provide peace. When we begin by rooting peace in God’s promises rather than human action, we can offer a realistic assessment of the present as well as a hopeful promise for the future.

[3] Taking both its title and its structure from liturgy, the statement situates itself in the everyday life of the church. The first paragraph indicates the role of the individual Christian (answering the call to be peacemakers), and the nature of the social statement, which is a petition. The peace described is clearly, from the very start, described as the eschatological peace of God’s reign. Although this is a teaching document about a social issue, the secular social issue is framed in theological terms. It might seem obvious in retrospect, but it is a brilliant first move on the part of the task force, claiming the holy term in the unholy, worldly context. Given the existence of a just war tradition and of Christian pacifist movements, the statement could have chosen to begin with war and peace as defined in geopolitical terms, and this move would certainly have met expectations and addressed anxieties. 

[4] But instead, wisely, the framing of the document in terms of God’s peace causes the reader to take a step back and consider that the matter of peace is not just a matter of the church stamping its imprimatur on the exercise of power that is war.  Such an imprimatur could be fairly easily argued  to be allowed under Luther’s explanation of God’s two realms and under duty to the neighbor. But the matter of peace is the question of how we are involved in and working towards God’s promised peace. Both God’s right and God’s left hand are invoked, and the conversation is no longer controlled by geopolitical realities in which the church has limited say, especially for Lutherans in the United States, but determined by biblical understanding. How frequently are pastors preaching about world events from the pulpit told that they shouldn’t be “preaching about politics,” and yet how can one argue that the peace of God has nothing to do with worldly peace?

[5] Sadly, much of the tasks listed at the end of the document remain open before us, and perhaps call us even more urgently than ever. What is the point, we wonder, of writing such a document, when the task of peace is so Sisyphean? Should we even be talking about peace, as the world’s most militarized democracy? Can we talk about peace right now when having Thanksgiving dinner with the family seems like an invitation to civil war for some people?. Only in the context of eschatological peace. Framing peace in terms of God’s promised peace allows us to work in a sinful and imperfect present with hope, even knowing that we will never, by our own work, achieve peace. Simply put, the statement cannot be written except via an eschatological understanding of peace.

[6] In addition to navigating the gulf between reality and hope, the task force also sought to navigate differences within the ELCA. The statements seeks to affirm just war teaching in the service of just peace and also to recognize pacifist voices, and the role they play in seeking peace. This might be one of the first times that an ELCA social statement attempts to bind together differing perspectives living in the church, but it won’t be the last. The social statements on abortion and human sexuality also carefully acknowledge differences in the church and attempt to chart a way for ELCA members to live with disagreement and tension.

[7] The just peace perspective which underlies the social statement allows for a level of discretion and discernment which might be difficult from a purely pacifistic perspective. But this possibility of ethical discernment is the distinguishing factor of ELCA social teaching. Laid out in the first social statement, “Church in Society,” is the idea that there can be more than one faithful answer, that the church should be a “community of moral deliberation” in which faithful Christians with different understanding of what their faith is calling them to do can work together to discern faithfully. Such a strategy can be unsatisfying and frustrating to the reader seeking a prophetic word that initiates sweeping change. But social statements must achieve a 2/3 majority of the Churchwide Assembly. A fact that makes difficult the formation and passing of a prophetic document much beyond the average churchgoer’s current place. Though social statements are not binding upon the conscience of individual members, members want to see their beloved institutions representing their current beliefs.

[8] One could certainly argue there are weaknesses to the approach. A decade out from the sexuality statement, some argue that it did not argue strongly enough for justice, and some of those who found their moderate views represented left the church anyway. The statements must pave a way for the future not simply represent the views of the current moment. In another 20 years, what will people say about the sexuality statement and its perspectives extant in the church when it comes to same-gender relations? Will we find the abortion statement said enough to protect both mothers and their children?  

[9] Leaving aside the practicality of what’s possible given procedural realities, the peace statement is a rich and fruitful example of the benefits of the moral deliberation model. It names different movements and encourages them to coexist, and by this move, retains vitality twenty-five years and countless geopolitical changes later.

[10] The peace statement laid the foundation for numerous subsequent teaching documents. Its support of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights might seem obvious in retrospect, but was probably not so at the time. As the author of the social message on human rights, I found the blueprint laid out by the peace statement helpful to begin the project of discussing human rights in a social message, for each new social statement must be based on already-established social teaching. The message begins in human dignity, specifically supports the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, and offers grounding for an understanding of human rights that evolves continually.

[11] More recently I redrafted an issue paper for Corporate Social Responsibility entitled “Violence in Our World,” which formerly focused on the now-long-past UN’s Decade for a Culture of Peace and Nonviolence. Given that the decade had expired some time ago, that the ELCA had a new social statement on gender-based violence, and that the work of the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility is always evolving to match the ever-changing world of business practices and supply chains, I anticipated change in the focus and emphasis of the paper.  While I did shift the focus of the issue paper to reflect the current emphasis of corporate social responsibility work and additional social teaching, I still found the peace social statement provided a rock-solid basis for the evolution of the document. Even twenty years later, in a world that had changed beyond the most imaginative of the drafters, the statement stood firm.

[12] Laying groundwork for evolving understanding is absolutely essential for a social statement. Historically the process of writing a social statement has been years long, work-intensive, and has required a 2/3 vote of at Churchwide Assembly. Deliberating through a social statement in an assembly of a few hundred people is itself no small task, particularly in an agenda in which every second is planned. Institutional churches turn like an ocean liner—that is with a lot of consultation, intricate directions, absolute cooperation, and a slow incremental end result. Writers of social statement hope to say something timely and (relatively) timeless in the same document, and the drafters of the peace social statement were able to do so.  Twenty five years later, the church is in a better place to address these issues because of this statement.

Rev. Kaari Reierson is the founding editor of the Journal of Lutheran Ethics.

 © December/January 2020

​Journal of Lutheran Ethics

Volume 20, Issue 7