Robert Herr and Judy Zimmerman Herr

Crisis and Opportunity
On the evening of November 9, 1989, Mark was with the crowds of East Berliners who first crossed over the broken-down Berlin Wall to visit and socialize with people in West Berlin. That event sent shock waves around the world and marked the end of an era. Mark reflected that the fall of the Wall took away people’s certainties about how things worked. Suddenly everything looked new.

We live in an age preoccupied with endings and beginnings. We often attach the prefix “post” to the words we use, including “post-modernism,” “post-Cold War,” and increasingly, “post-twentieth century.” The end of a millennium features centrally in our discussions, sometimes giving us a feeling of being in crisis. But we also live in a time of great hope and expectation. The Chinese symbol for crisis is made up of the symbols for danger and opportunity. A time of change and crisis carries dangers but also opportunities for new thinking and possibilities.

The fall of the Berlin Wall marks a time of world change, change which has included both dangers and opportunities. The breakup of the Soviet Union paved the way for reduced fears of nuclear war between the great powers, but nuclear weapons still pollute the world. The year in which South Africans of all races voted together for the first time was also the year in which massive killing and displacement erupted in Rwanda. Nations have made progress in developing systems of international negotiation, but conflicts within nations have increased. Even though a decade has passed since the world first celebrated the end of one era and the beginning of another, both the powerful and those without power still struggle to know how to respond to the end of a bipolar world power structure.

We refer to these bipolar years as the Cold War—”cold” in that a major clash, such as World War I or World War II, never erupted between the alliances of the West and the East. The years since the end of this Cold War have been uncertain ones, as the world struggles to develop new relational systems and organizations. To be sure, there is cause for optimism, as proxy wars in Angola, Mozambique, El Salvador, Nicaragua, and Guatemala stumble to an end.

But there is also ground for pessimism. Conflicts of local origin have split nations in Somalia, ex-Yugoslavia, Rwanda, and Congo. Both for those who control military power and look to it to bring order or control, and for those who seek to be peacemakers in new ways, the world continues to be confusing. Even the term “Cold War,” which carried so much meaning only a few years ago, now seems parochial. At a conference in 1994, a participant from Colombia posed the question: “Why do you call this war cold? For us in poor countries, who bore the brunt of East and West proxy struggles, this war felt very hot!”

This volume is the result of conversation in the Historic Peace Church/Fellowship of Reconciliation Consultative Committee based in the United States. Christian peace theology and peacemaking have been the heart of this group’s existence since its formation over thirty years ago. But commitment to peace cannot remain a static idea. The end of the Cold War era requires that as people of faith we once again look at our situation and think together about responding to the new world we see around us.
The need for peacemakers seems obvious. The easing of nuclear tensions between Moscow and Washington has given way to growing fears that nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons of mass destruction may spread to additional countries. The gap between the world’s rich and poor is growing. Environmental problems spurred by overconsumption, resource shortages, pollution, and burgeoning populations threaten unprecedented violence to God’s creation. They stimulate selfish, warring rivalries among those created in God’s image. Ethnic, national, and religious prejudices, inflamed by political leaders who incite citizens to hate and fear, spark violent conflicts, and fragment societies.

In this context the Christian church, and all people of religious faith, face difficult questions. Is peace possible in our world? What today is the role of national governments and of international institutions? How can we as people of faith respond to large-scale systems of globalization and economic forces which seem so powerful? And, how can we build communities of peace with our neighbors?

Historic peace churches and the Fellowship of Reconciliation have a long history of thinking about and working for peace. Throughout the Cold War era, these groups and other churches continued ecumenical conversations on peace. On one level, such work is theological--understanding the nature of God’s will for peace and God’s calling of people to peace. But such work has also always found practical expression in the lives of individual people as they work at making peace in their community and in their world.

This book surveys some current thinking and presents examples of activities on these three levels. The fact that its contributors include writers from a variety of traditions reflects the ecumenical nature of the peacemaking task.

The first section, “Foundation for a Just Peace,” includes writing from various traditions and locations. Even in a new context, we can find a basis for our peacemaking in past experiences and examples. In this light, Jim Forest points to the earliest history of the church and the teachings of Jesus. Walter Wink finds in Jesus’ command to turn the other cheek some practical advice for people in situations of oppression. Dorothee Soelle examines the life of eighteenth-century Quaker leader John Woolman, whom she sees as providing an example of the necessary connection between spirituality and working for justice.

Changed contexts also call for new ways of thinking, however. Glen Stassen and Duane Friesen suggest a new paradigm for peace conversations that moves beyond the just war and pacifist debates to ask what is being done to make peace. Their “just peacemaking theory” proposes normative activities that can guide actions of churches as well as governments and international bodies. Chaiwat Satha-Anand, a Muslim peace scholar from Thailand, reflects on the usefulness for politics of the concept of forgiveness which he finds in Christian, Muslim, and Gandhian teachings. Finally Gerald Pillay, writing from a context of rebuilding after a long struggle against apartheid, explores the notion of a theology focused on the need to reconstruct the basis of society.

Building a culture of peace begins locally but also includes awareness of work at a global level. These two levels exist in a dynamic interaction, so separating them may seem artificial. Yet while skills at one level may transfer to the other, there will also be differences. The remainder of this volume focuses on direct accounts of such work, locally and globally, with stories from a variety of persons and places.

The practical stories recounted here grow from a commitment to peace as the heart of the Christian message. In the final chapter, Lauree Hersch Meyer, of the Historic Peace Churches/Fellowship of Reconciliation Committee, reflects on these examples and activities in the light of a peace church theology.

Being a peacemaker today takes place in a world that is changing rapidly. Before we turn to specific examples, it is important to reflect on the forces that shape the world in which we live and to ask what these may mean for the task of making peace.

One obvious change in the past ten years is the breaking up of global military balance-of-power blocs. The old bipolar world, with two superpowers vying for influence and smaller nations positioning themselves as clients, is gone. Wars still erupt––sometimes it seems with increasing frequency––but they are smaller. Nations break up. Boundaries take on new meaning and are sometimes redrawn. Some analysts fear we are returning to a more feudal, city-state polity. At the same time, new global networks are developing which function outside of the control of established government structures and international associations.

As national and ideologically based relationships give way, the world is characterized by “globalization.” Economic power replaces military power as central. Economic self-interest carries more sway with governments than do the former political relationships and alliances. Free trade is the prevailing value, in contrast to the previous era with its walls of tariff control and currency restriction. Questions of fairness and justice abound in this new climate, but countries continue to jump onto the bandwagon of the free movement of capital, information, and, increasingly, even people.

Philosophically, we are described as living in the postmodern era. This is a time characterized by many choices and options as well as individualized, decentralized authority. Throughout the world, peoples’ organizations and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) now do things that once were the sole responsibility of governments. States and international bodies such as the UN struggle to maintain program continuity and stability with this new and assertive NGO phenomenon.

We are witnessing a revolution in systems of communication which is changing the world. Instantaneous and inexpensive communication networks open the world to new discussions. Technology such as cellular satellite phones and computer e-mail linkups reach corners of the globe bypassed by earlier technological developments. We may regret the standardization that comes with worldwide television networks channeling the same sanitized news and advertisements into every country, but this communications revolution also gives to those previously isolated a world platform from which to share ideas and solicit support.

These trends—open trade, free movement of capital, increasing mobility of people, importance of nongovernmental organizations, growth of communications technology—all change the management and organizing systems available to nations. Governments no longer have the ability they had even recently to set terms and define boundaries of international relationships. International agencies also struggle to define their roles in this new world. Although these trends hold promise, there is a great deal of uncertainty about what they will deliver.

Relationships among nations have traditionally relied strongly on the principle of national sovereignty. This established and often wise pattern provided a measure of international legal protection for smaller countries. Outside interference in the internal affairs of countries needed to contend with especially high legal hurdles. But here too there has been great change, beginning with the development in the past fifty years of international Human Rights Law, which has enlarged the moral and legal ground for international intervention. New legal understandings are developing, based on Human Rights Law, that question sovereignty by calling states to abide by international standards in their treatment of people.
These developments can place strains on older foundations for national identity. As identities change, others form or resurface, often in the guise of older categories––ethnic group, religious affiliation, or clan/family structures. And from this comes the new cliché that wars are now fought in— rather than between—nation-states.

What do these trends mean for peacemakers in this new world of the twenty-first century? Although many of the developments summarized here are threatening, they also present opportunities. This “opening up” creates new possibilities for citizen networks. International bodies such as the UN, regional bodies such as the OAS (Organization of American States), OAU (Organization of African Unity) and EU (European Union), and some nations as well, recognize that peoples’ organizations and NGOs play a vital role.

On February 12, 1997, three international NGOs (Medicins Sans Frontiers, CARE and Oxfam), all sponsoring humanitarian relief work in Eastern Congo, were invited to address the UN Security Council. This was the first time NGOs were invited to participate at this level. The willingness of governmental and international structures to engage these unofficial networks in dialogue varies, but they are listened to in ways that did not happen a decade ago. Boundaries between “public” and “private” are less precise than before.

One example of the growing recognition given to unofficial actors is in programs for peacemaking. “Track-one diplomacy” is traditional international diplomacy, carried out by country ambassadors and international state negotiators. “Track-two diplomacy” is a new term which describes peace negotiation that takes place away from the official negotiation tables. International agencies and diplomats now speak of the need to use multiple tracks to broker international relationships.

Religion, culture, and local identity are increasingly recognized as important components of a peace process. Peoples’ organizations and nongovernmental groups participate in the mediation of conflicts in or among nations. An alternative track-two approach can fill a void in the connection to resolving conflict at community or grassroots levels.

Changes in communications technology and the growth of peoples’ groups and NGOs make it possible to hear from people in less advantaged situations. This can offer a new voice to the Christian church outside its traditional centers. The strength of the church in the world’s poorer areas gives a new urgency, and often a new definition, to peacemaking, mission, and service. Christian theology is called to respond in new ways to communities facing distress.

In light of these challenges, Christians are looking again and with new eyes at the calling to be peacemakers. This task, which requires a strong spiritual base and attention both to the local and the global, is marked by experimentation.

Peace requires more than achieving a cease-fire or a political settlement. To enable people to truly live at peace with one another, valuing one another and seeking the welfare of all, is a monumental task, especially where war or oppression have been the norm. Such peace will not be built quickly and cannot only be based on changing structures. It also requires changing people. To be genuine, peace must reach into people’s basic identity structure; it must include spiritual change.

In the latter part of the 1980s, peoples’ movements brought rapid changes to government and national structures in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. At the same time, movements for democracy culminated in multiparty elections and new systems for governance in many countries in Africa and Latin America. Euphoria was widespread. This was the dawn of a new era of democracy and freedom! Now, at the end of the century, it is clear that change in society does not happen quickly or easily. Many of the countries which saw this rapid change are struggling to hold their societies together. Building peace is long, slow work.

So building peace indeed requires spiritual resources for sustenance. But this is the essence of the Christian faith! Jew and Greek will no longer see each other as foreign. Slave and master will be reconciled. Male and female will work as equals. Above all, loving enemies will become the hallmark of the new humanity. This vision that has sustained Christians through the ages is particularly relevant for the world we live in today.

This book grows from Christian traditions which throughout their history have been committed to peace as God’s will for Christians and for the world. These traditions have understood the practical implications of working for peace in different ways at various times in their history. But their commitment to a faith which sees peace as a central aim undergirds their practical efforts.

In a world characterized by both globalization and a resurgence of local identity, peacemaking will be both local and global. Tools for working at peace will begin in homes and communities, in schools and neighborhoods. At the same time, peacemaking will form networks reaching around the world. Thus the stories in this book include accounts of both local and international peacemaking.

Finally peacemaking is marked by experimentation. There is no one right way to go about creating peaceful communities and a peaceful world. Working for peace will differ according to the context. In some cases, it will include nonviolent interventions. In others, it will include building new structures to ensure peace. A culture of peace will be marked by variety and diversity. Thus what we have to share are examples, not formulas. This book is one attempt to share both theological resources to undergird and examples to inspire and encourage.

	To Pandora U.S. Main Page
	To Transforming Violence Contents