[Previous entry: "Better late than never"] [Next entry: "Better watch that "terrorist" talk"]
09/17/2004: "The WCC definition of peace"
His Holiness Aram I, Catholicos of the Armenian Apostolic Church and moderator of the World Council of Churches' Central Committee has written about peace as the WCC prepares to celebrate the United Nations' International Day of Peace on September 21:
Peace is a gift of God to humanity through the Incarnation of Christ. The birth of Christ was announced by the angels as the restoration of peace in this world. A God-given reality cannot be usurped by man. This is a sin against God.
Peace is a divine promise. It will be granted to those who are ready to accept it in humanity and obedience, and to preserve, enhance and enrich it as a sacred treasure.
Peace is also a God-given mission that must be fulfilled. Hence, peace-making is integral to the Christian vocation. It is an essential dimension of the proclamation of the Gospel.
Amen and amen.
Peace primarily means respect for life. This requires us to renounce violence against life and to preserve its sacredness and integrity.
I expect the WCC to issue a statement condemning the international practice of abortion any moment, in pursuance of the Catholicos' definition of peace.
Peace means doing justice. Justice is a sine qua non condition for peace. It is the only way to peace. True and permanent peace is undergirded by justice.
Well, yeah, as long as we are all operating with a Christian definition of justice. As he goes on, I'm not sure we are.
Peace means accepting each other the way we are, by respecting our differences and seeking common goals and values in the midst of differences.
God doesn't accept us the way we are–He seeks to transform us from sinners to saints. We can't bring that transformation about, but we can call people to repentance and faith. And even as a foundation for merely human community, there have to be limits on acceptance. I don't think it's ever necessary to respect differences when they go to the issue of whether it's okay to kill infidels.
Peace means building community by recognizing the rights and obligations of each other, and promoting creative interaction and coherent relationships.
Okey-dokey. As soon as the Catholicos figured out how to do that with Wahhabis and Hindu nationalists and Buddhist Tamils who are persecuting Christians, we can get going on this.
Peace does not mean that enemies are conquered; it means that enmity is overcome through mutual understanding and trust.
See the previous comment. Also, does this idea mean that we can oppose those who would conquer us or not?
Peace does not mean absence of conflict, but right relationships with God, with neighbours, and with the creation. Peace prevails wherever and whenever there is freedom in truth (John 14:16), equality in justice (Col. 4:1), and harmony in life (1 John 4:8).
In the kingdom of God, certainly. How this translates to the pre-Second Coming world is anybody's guess.
A vision of true peace rejects unilateralism and promotes multi-lateralism. It rejects all "ism"s that ignore the God-given gift of life, dignity, justice and freedom. It rejects all forms of governance that deny participation and community.
This is where we see the real agenda. "Unilateralism" is nothing but code for an anti-US foreign policy. The Catholicos should read his own country's newspapers–Armenia has just become the 31st country to commit troops to Iraq. (BTW, Deroy Murdock of NRO provides some figures regarding that supposed "unilateralism": 17.3% of the troops in Iraq are non-American, and 11% of those killed have been non-Americans. You can quibble about whether it's enough, but the nonsense aboout "unilateralism" is an insult to those who have given their lives for the freedom of Iraqis.) And if the WCC's "vision of peace...rejects all forms of governance that deny participation and community," why is it that the WCC was so dead-set against the removal of the tyrant Saddam from power?
A vision of true peace strives for a society governed by the rule of law and sustained by basic moral values and fundamental human rights.
Once again, that should involve rejecting the "forms of governance" that keep the populations of Saudi Arabia, Syria, Cuba, North Korea, Iran, China and other tyrannies in thrall. Instead, the WCC tends to fawn on them. And we won't even talk about how Armenia's former Soviet rulers were treated with kid gloves by the WCC.
In a world torn apart by the rhetoric of hate, mistrust and alienation, the churches must become more vigorously engaged in peacemaking.
Religions are challenged to work together for a just, participatory and morally sustainable society. They are urged to promote dialogue among civilizations, cultures and religions by leading humanity from a culture of death to a culture of life, from a culture of violence to a culture of peace.
Well, yes, but that has to happen in all religions, or it doesn't work at all.
Religions must support the United Nations in its attempt to transform its peace-keeping mandate into a peace-building mission. Such a mission implies addressing seriously the root causes of violence, hate and distrust, which have become dominant features of contemporary societies. It also implies advocating for justice by eradicating all forms of poverty, racism and ignorance.
This is the way to build peace.
Religions must support the UN, eh? Would that be the sex-trafficking peace-keepers UN, the Oil-for-Food UN, the dither-over-genocide UN, or the dictatorships chairing the Human Rights Commission UN? That's the way to build a bureaucratic mafia, not peace, Your Holiness.
