The Problems With Peacemongering

Merrit Martin is a blogger who lives in Washington, D.C.  With her permission, we've requested to repost her recent blog entry from Waiting For Morning. She raises some interesting questions here, and we invite you to join the conversation in comments below.

Thanks to my good friend Renee, who keeps me plugged in to all things Presbyterian (and blogs here), I have just discovered that the PC(USA) is considering becoming a peace church—i.e. officially opposing wars and violence out of principle, regardless of the circumstances. For generations, the Presbyterian Church, like most American mainline denominations, has operated under Just War theory, a theological framework that offers a number of criteria under which fighting is justifiable, in order to make faithful folk feel less terrible about going to war.

Because let’s face it: war is terrible. It destroys countries, depletes natural resources, disrupts governments, and devastates local economies. It stirs up hatred of one group for another, which can perpetuate conflict for generations. It ends lives, violently. In our modern warfare, which takes place less and less on isolated battlefields, it often results in the deaths of women and children and innocent civilians. And the soldiers who come home may face PTSD, substance abuse issues, loss of limb, and other physical and mental health struggles. War is not a good thing.

On the surface, then, “Just War” sounds absurd and somewhat revolting. Why should we try to justify violence of any kind? Of course we should embrace nonviolence! It’s the job of the church to be a witness to peace and justice in the world! And other such platitudes.

On the other hand, a move to become a “peace church” is a total cop-out. It is a more of a witness to our desire for purity than for peace, as if we don’t want the PCUSA to be ‘defiled’ by any association with violence or any appearance to condone war.

But the fact of the matter is, we live in a broken world, and war and violence are a part of that world. We can—and should—lament violence without ending the conversation completely. Rather, I think we have a responsibility to struggle with each new conflict that arises. It is a way to remember what we believe and to renew our commitment to our faith. Besides, the theory defines “just wars” fairly narrowly. I believe that abandoning Just War theory would be a theological overreach, and there are two main problems I’m afraid that the decision would create:

1)    There would essentially be no place in our church for members of the military and their families—and if anyone can teach us about self-sacrifice, it’s them. If anyone needs healing and love, it’s them. Military families should feel welcomed in our congregations, without the tacit understanding that the PC(USA) thinks their whole careers are ‘wrong.’ After all, Jesus didn’t do that. He just healed the centurion’s servant, no questions asked.

2)    There is something politically meaningful in a church opposing a war that it has carefully considered. There is very little meaning in opposing every war, without consideration. If the PC(USA) makes an official declaration opposing a given war, as the Presbytery of Greater Atlanta did recently, it may serve as somewhat of a deterrent to policymakers. But if we oppose the idea of war itself, we are essentially abdicating our ability to have that kind of impact.

Violence is a deplorable part of our world. But I don’t think it is the place of the church to say it is an unforgivable, irredeemable part. We should be working to offer more creative solutions to conflict than military intervention. Opposition to all military intervention, though, is not creative enough. It’s not a plausible solution, and it’s not helpful to military families, policymakers, or those affected by conflict.

Merrit Martin
Waiting For Morning