CENTRO PRO UNIONE N. 78 - Fall 2010 ISSN: 1122-0384 semi-annual Bulletin In this issue: Letter from the Director..........................................................p. 2 “Glory to God and on Earth Peace:” Historic Peace Church Perspectives on the International Ecumenical Peace Convocation Larry Miller............................................................. p. 3 Echoes of John Calvin’s Ecclesiology in the Reformed-Catholic International Dialogue William Henn, OFM Cap.................................................. p. 10 Word and Spirit: Calvin’s Theology and the Issues of Today Patrick Lyons, OSB...................................................... p. 19 Centro Pro Unione - Via S. Maria dell'Anima, 30 - 00186 Rome, Italy A Center conducted by the Franciscan Friars of the Atonement www.prounione.urbe.itDirector's Desk With several anniversaries and preparations for events happening on the world scene, the Centro Pro Unione desires to contribute to these events through its lecture series. Some of the texts of these events are printed in this issue of the Bulletin. The first article is based on the lecture given by the Executive Secretary of the World Mennonite Conference, Dr. Larry Miller: “Glory to God and on Earth Peace:” Historic Peace Church Perspectives on the International Ecumenical Peace Convocation. In his lecture he explained the attempts of the “peace churches” to be involved in the elimination of violence in society as their contribution to the WCC’s decade to overcome violence. He traces for us the evolution of the project and the main statement for the Convocation to be held in Jamaica in 2011: “Towards an Ecumenical Declaration on Just Peace.” Dr. Miller concludes his lecture with an analysis of the reception of this document by the historic peace churches. The next two texts were lectures given to conclude our anniversary celebration of the Genevan reformer Jean Calvin (10 July 1509 – 27 May 1564). The first was presented at the annual celebration of the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity (January 18-25). Each year the Centro and the Lay Centre at the Foyer Unitas sponsor an afternoon of prayer and reflection on the Thursday of the Week of Prayer. This includes a lecture on an ecumenical topic followed by an ecumenical prayer vigil. This year’s lecture was given by William Henn, OFM Cap: Echoes of John Calvin’s Ecclesiology in the Reformed- Catholic International Dialogue. After introducing Calvin’s thinking about the Church he then presents the influence this thinking had on the various statements of the dialogue between the Catholic and Reformed churches. His conclusion reveals how much of Calvin’s ecclesiology is echoed in the agreed statements already published and also the impact that Calvin’s thinking may have for the future of the dialogue. The third text takes a look at the dynamic of word and spirit in Calvin’s theology. Dom Patrick Lyons, OSB spoke on: Word and Spirit: Calvin’s Theology and the Issues of Today. After taking a look at the person of John Calvin, Dr. Lyons then proceeds to analyze the relationship of the pair ‘word and spirit’ in Calvin’s theology but also in relation to other Reformers, especially Martin Luther. In the last part of his presentation, the authors speaks of the implication that the ‘word-spirit’ relationship has with ecclesiology and the sacraments in particular. His conclusion brings together these insights and then asks what contribution Calvin’s theology may make after five hundred years? The Centro’s staff wishes to remember with fondness the passing of Mons. Eleuterio Francesco Fortino who died in September. He was a passionate ecumenist and an extraordinary person. May he rest in peace. Check our web site for up to date information on the Centro’s activities and realtime information on the theological dialogues. All of our staff wish you all a very pleasant Summer. This Bulletin is indexed in the ATLA Religion Database, published by the American Theological Library Association, 250 S. Wacker Drive, 16 th Floor, Chicago, IL 60606 (http://www.atla.com). James F. Puglisi, sa DirectorN. 78 / Fall 2010Bulletin / Centro Pro Unione 3 Centro Conferences CCCC “Glory to God and on Earth Peace:” Historic Peace Church Perspectives On the International Ecumenical Peace Convocation Larry Miller General Secretary, World Mennonite Conference (Conference given at the Centro Pro Unione, Thursday, 15 April 2010) INTRODUCTION World Council of Churches Initiatives In November 1998, delegates to the World Council of Church’s Eighth Assembly, gathered in Harare, Zimbabwe, vo ted to establish a “Decade to Overcome Violence.” This WCC initiative runs parallel to the United Nations “Decade for a Culture of Peace and Nonviolence for the Children of the World” (2001-2010). Its aim is to move concerns for peace, justice and reconciliation from the periphery of the church to her centre. In the years since the Decade’s official launch in 2001, it has attempted to address a wide variety of violence at all levels — individual, interpersonal, and collective. In February 2006, delegates to the World Council’s (WCC) Ninth Assembly, meeting in Porto Alegre, Brazil, voted to conclude the Decade to Overcome Violence with an Interna- tional Ecumenical Peace Convocation (IEPC). The IEPC, scheduled to take place May 17-25, 2011, in Jamaica, is intended to harvest the achievements of the Decade to Over- come Violence while planting the seeds for a more peaceful future. Its motto and guiding motif comes from the shepherds in the fields near Bethlehem, as reported in the Gospel of Luke (2:14), “Glory to God and Earth Peace!” According to the WCC, the convocation will bring together a wide spectrum of churches and Christian organizations “witness- ing to the peace of God as a gift and responsibility of the entire human family.” It will seek to “strengthen the church's position on peace, provide opportunities for networking and deepening our common commitment to the processes of reconciliation and just peace.”1 More specifically, convocation planners say2 that the IEPC will be a place and time for: •Celebrating God’s peace and the good will of God’s people; •Working on a theology of peace and relinquishing any theological justification of violence; •Telling stories of failure and success in overcoming violence, and listening to examples and good practices; •Equipping participants with creative and effective tools for preventing and overcoming violence, and promoting peace and justice; •Committing individuals and churches to a theology and practice of non-violence, peace, and justice; and • Proclaiming an Ecumenical Declaration on Just Peace. It is on this “Declaration of Just Peace” that we will focus our attention. Historic Peace Churches Responses Among the early and prominent participants in both of these WCC initiatives—the Decade to Overcome Violence and the International Ecumenical Peace Convocation process—are members of the “Historic Peace Churches.” “Historic Peace Church” (HPC) is a term popularized first in 1935 in the United States to refer to the Church of the Brethren, the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers), and the Mennonite churches which share a common witness against war. These three traditions of European origin, now spread around the world, date from different times: the Mennonites from the radical Reformation in the 16th century; the Friends from radical Puritanism in the 17th century; and the Brethren from radical pietism in the 18th century. Yet all have borne witness in their foundational texts and confessional writings that peace is an essential aspect of the gospel; all have rejected the use of violence and lethal force. Their common position on peace has brought these three Christian communions into many cooperative 1 See www.overcomingviolence.org/en/iepc/about-iepc/objectives- and-concepts.html 2 The International Ecumenical Peace Convocation brochure “Glory to God and Peace on Earth.”4 Bulletin / Centro Pro UnioneN. 78 / Fall 2010 relationships, not only during times of war but also in worldwide peacemaking, service and relief projects. 3 A History of Responding to the World Council of Churches Though very few Historic Peace Churches are members of the World Council of Churches, there is a history of common HPC peace witness in the context of the WCC—and this from the very earliest days of the council. At its founding assembly in Amsterdam in 1948, in the shadow of the Second World War, the WCC declared that “war is contrary to the will of God.” Following-up in 1949, General Secretary William Visser t’Hooft invited HPC representatives to present arguments for a pacifist position to the worldwide fellowship of churches. The representatives accepted the call. In their 1951 booklet, War Is Contrary to the Will of God, each Historic Peace Church group submitted its own statement, adding a fourth from the International Fellowship of Reconcilia- tion. Ecumenical leaders expressed appreciation for the statements but challenged the peace church leaders to do better. If the HPC could not formulate a common position on the Christian response to war, how could they expect the diverse WCC membership to come to agreement? So the HPC representatives renewed their efforts and, just prior to the WCC’s second assembly in 1954, presented a joint statement named “Peace Is the Will of God” (1953). This statement evoked a response from Protestant theologian Reinhold Niebuhr and Episcopalian bishop Angus Dun in defense of the “Just War” position, under the title “God Wills both Justice and Peace” (1955).4 A few years later (1958), the HPC published another document, entitled “God Establishes both Peace and Justice” trying to take into account Niebuhr’s arguments in counter-defense of the pacifist position. Beginning in the late 1960s, the HPC contributed to the WCC discussions on violence and nonviolence related not only to war, but also to the economic, social and political structures of injustice. The WCC’s fourth assembly (Uppsala, 1968) made an effort to deal with the issue of violence. HPC representatives participated but the results left them dissatisfied. At a subse- quent consultation, one Mennonite presented a paper indicative of the disappointment; it was entitled “The Problem of Violence: Let’s Start All Over Again.” At the fifth WCC assembly in Nairobi, in 1975, HPC delegates advocated for nonviolent alternatives to military engagement. Again they came away with the sentiment that their voice had not been fully heard or at least not as effective as hoped. A few HPC representatives were involved in the sixth WCC assembly (Vancouver, 1983) and then in the new “Justice, Peace and the Integrity of the Creation” program which emerged from it. By this time, however, HPC representatives were developing serious concern about the adequacy of the ecclesiological foundation and orientation of these WCC initiatives. The result was a new booklet-length HPC statement, shaped primarily by the leading Mennonite theologian of the 20 th century, John Howard Yoder, and published in 1990 under the title, A Declara- tion on Peace: In God’s People the World’s Renewal has Begun. The book was widely promoted at the WCC’s seventh assembly (Canberra, 1991), where HPC representatives collabo- rated with one another to bring peace churches perspectives into assembly processes. This history of Historic Peace Church response to World Council of Churches initiatives prepared the way and opened the direction for HPC perspectives on and engagement in both the Decade to Overcome Violence and now the International Ecumenical Peace Convocation. Responding to the Decade to Overcome Violence and to the International Ecumenical Peace Convocation In 1994, the WCC had established a “Program to Overcome Violence.” This initiative was designed “with the purpose of challenging and transforming the global culture of violence in the direction of a culture of just peace.”5 HPC representatives worked vigorously to support and extend the vision of this new program. What resulted, in at least some part from these efforts, was the Decade to Overcome Violence (DOV). From the very beginning, Historic Peace Church representa- tives participated at the heart of the Decade initiative. Indeed, they were among the instigators of it. Throughout the week of the WCC’s 8 th assembly in 1997, in Harare, the HPC caucus had appealed unsuccessfully to the WCC governing committees to place on the plenary table an action proposing what would become the Decade to Overcome Violence. Finally, at the very end of the assembly, after some participants had already left to catch their airplanes, Fernando Enns, the German Mennonite Church delegate, was finally given the floor to make the motion directly in plenary session. Delegates adopted the proposal; the DOV was formally launched several years later, in 2001. Very early on, the WCC Central Committee asked the Historic Peace Churches to give special attention to the Decade. These groups quickly sensed a need to coordinate efforts, so an international HPC conference was organized in 2001 in Europe, issuing in the book Seeking Cultures of Peace: A Peace Church Conversation. Additional Decade-related and HPC-convened consultations took place in Africa in 2004 and Asia in 2007. 3 See S. SPEICHER and D.F. DURNBAUGH, “Historic Peace Churches,” in N. LOSSKY, et. ali., (eds.), Dictionary of the Ecumenical Movement (Geneva: WCC Publications, 2002) 521f. 4 In Christianity and Crisis, 15, 10 (June 13, 1955). 5 H.L. GIBBLE, “Ecumenical Engagement for Peace and Nonviolence,” in T.D. PAXSON, Jr. (ed.), Ecumenical Engagement or Peace and Nonviolence: Experiences and Initiatives of the Historic Peace Churches and the Fellowship of Reconciliation (Elgin, Il,: Global Mission Partnerships, Church of the Brethren General Board, 2006).N. 78 / Fall 2010Bulletin / Centro Pro Unione 5 Other HPC and WCC co-sponsored books were published.6 In the meantime, Historic Peace Churches contributed leadership, staff and money to the WCC in support of the Decade to Overcome Violence. It may not be an exaggeration to say that the sustainability of the Programme to Overcome Violence and the Decade to Overcome Violence was due in significant degree to the Historic Peace Churches’ engagement. And this HPC support for and participation in the Decade continues in relation to the IEPC. For example, in December of 2009 the Union of German Mennonite Congregations submitted as a contribution to the WCC process its own “Declaration on Just Peace,” under the title “Guide our feet into the way of Peace.” In the 125 years of the existence of this union of churches, there is no comparable document. In July of this year, the HPC in North America will host an ecumenical gathering in the USA, under the name, “Peace Among the Peoples,” with the objective of “critically appropriating the agenda of the 2011 Convocation.” One more contribution to the IEPC process must be named; after all it was created here, in this place. An international dialogue between Mennonite World Conference and the Catholic Church took place between 1998 and 2003, beginning with the theme “Towards a Healing of Memories,” and concluding with a report entitled Called Together to be Peacemakers. In the hope that, on the basis of that dialogue, Catholics and Mennonites could together offer suggestions for the IEPC, the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity and the Mennonite World Conference sponsored a conference, October 23-25, 2007, in these “walls.” The result was a common Catholic/Mennonite statement of theological reflections, which Mennonites and Catholics committed to overcoming violence may affirm together as a witness to peace in an ecumenical statement. The statement begins by identifying biblical and theological foundations of peace, under the headings “Creation, Christology, and Ecclesiology.” Then follows a section on peace and discipleship. The statement closes with some challenges and recommendations for consideration by the IEPC. To focus more narrowly the question of Historic Peace Church perspectives on the IEPC, we will now turn our attention to the IEPC “Initial Statement Towards an Ecumenical Declaration on Just Peace” and Historic Peace Church responses to it. “Initial Statement: Towards an Ecumenical Declaration on Just Peace” Producing the Ecumenical Declaration on Just Peace Production of the “Ecumenical Declaration on Just Peace” for the International Ecumenical Peace Convocation, is taking place through a multi-phased process. The first step consisted of the work in 2008 of a “first drafting group” appointed by the WCC. For their task, the group took into consideration contributions from the “Living Letters” visits of ecumenical teams to various sensitive regions of the world,7 from five “Expert Consultations,” from theological faculties and seminaries, and from a number of other sources. One of these other “sources”—and the only one listed on the IEPC website under the heading of “confessional bodies/councils”—is the joint Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity / Mennonite World Conference statement to which I referred a moment ago. This first drafting group wrote not a first draft of the Declaration on Just Peace but what they called an “initial statement towards an ecumenical declaration on just peace.” They understood their statement to provide a “conceptual framework meant to facilitate a process of reflection in WCC member churches – and beyond – on the meaning and practice of just peace in today’s violent world.” 8 They hoped that their considerations would inspire and provoke readers to offer reactions and suggestions. In November 2008, the WCC General Secretary, Sam Kobia, sent this “Initial Statement” to WCC member churches, associate councils, Christian World Communions, regional ecumenical organizations, and other international ecumenical organizations, inviting written responses. The elaboration of responses throughout the year 2009 constituted the second phase of the process. A number of groups did write responses to the “Initial Statement;” a dozen are posted on the IECP website. Convocation organizers have received additional ones, including the Historic Peace Church statements that we will review shortly. The third step in the process of producing the “Ecumenical Declaration on Just Peace” has just begun with the first meeting of second drafting group, March 20-27, in Bogota, Colombia. Rev. Dr. Konrad Raiser, former WCC general secretary, serves as moderator of this ten-member group. Two Historic Peace Church representatives are members of the group; there were no HPC representatives on the first drafting group. It is the task of the second drafting group to write the “Ecumenical Declaration on Just Peace.” Unofficial word indicates that we can expect a first version of the Declaration to begin circulating next month (May 2010), at least to the groups that wrote responses to the “Initial Statement.” This will constitute the fourth phase of the process, culminating in the fifth phase, the writing of the Declaration, which will be presented to the Convocation. In short, at this moment we stand somewhere between the third and fourth steps of the process. We have responses to the “Initial Statement” but not yet the first draft of the Declaration itself. We can already study perspectives on the “Initial 6 J. ZIMMERMANN HERR & R. HERR, (eds.) Transforming Violence: Linking Local and Global Peacemaking (Scottsdale, PA: Herald Press, 1998); M. YODER HOLSOPPLE, R.E. KRALL & S. WEAVER PITTMAN, Building Peace: Overcoming Violence in Communities, Risk Book Series (Geneva: WCC Publications, 2004). 7 Israel and Palestine, Haiti, Pakistan… 8 Letter from Sam Kobia, WCC general secretary, to WCC member churches and others, November 2008.6 Bulletin / Centro Pro UnioneN. 78 / Fall 2010 Statement,” including those of Historic Peace Churches. But we cannot yet see to what extent these points of view have influenced the second drafting committee and shaped the content of the first version of the Declaration itself. For this reason, we will now focus on the “Initial Statement” and the Historic Peace Church responses to it. Structure and Content of the “Initial Statement” The “Initial Statement” with its 117 paragraphs begins with a “Meditative Introduction” entitled, “Glory to God and Peace on Earth” (§§ 1-7). These words from Luke 2 serve as the motto both for the International Ecumenical Peace Convocation and for the “Initial Statement.” It is meant to remind us that God “is the foundation of everything we can say and do about overcoming violence and promoting peace in and with the earth” (§2). It is meant to remind us also of the biblical “emphasis on the earth as the location of peace…” (§6). The statement’s “Preamble” (§§ 8-12) claims that “we find ourselves at special moment, a kairos of grace” (§8). In the events of global history since 1989 and the fall of the Berlin Wall, God is “bidding us to repent of our sinfulness and seeking a deeper conversion to Christ (…) to renew our commitment to the shalom of God for which so many people in our time cry out” (§9). What does this mean for the churches? This initial statement is an attempt to consider how they “need to understand peace at this kairos of converging and contending forces, and where discipleship calls them to commit themselves in the coming years “ (§12). In line with the theological affirmation of the priority of God, chapter 1 speaks of “The God of Peace and the Peace of God” (§§ 13-45). A first section describes “Key Biblical Concepts” (§§ 14-18). Particularly important is shalom as a broad concept “inclusive of individual and communal peace. It encompasses the well being of human beings and the earth, the fullness of humanity’s social relations and humanity’s connectedness to the earth” (§15). In the New Testament, Jesus himself is the source of the peace which “makes it possible to overcome enmity and division” (§18). According to a second section in this chapter (§§ 19-21), peace is meant to unfold in the “oikos or Household of God” which includes both the oikos of the church and the oikos of the world. Further sections deal with “The God of Peace Revealed as the Holy Trinity” (§§ 22-27), “Human Beings – Earthlings in God’s Image” (§§ 27), “The Mystery of Evil and the Perversities of the Human Heart - Faces of Violence” (§§ 28), “Violence and the Reality of Trespassing” (§§ 29-33), “Abusing our Powers” (§§ 34-38) and, finally, “Forms and Structures of Enmity” (§§ 39-45). Where does the Church stand in all of this, the drafters of the statement ask us near the conclusion of chapter one. “It cannot pretend not to be seriously affected; for indeed all the abuses to which we have referred are also to be found within Christian communities” (§44). And so it must recover faithfulness to the call to discipleship, that is “to take the side of the poor and the powerless, to witness to the truth, even when it puts our lives at stake, and to be communities of healing and salvation” (§ 45). Chapter 2 of the “Initial Statement” focuses on these communities of healing and salvation” under the title: “In the Name of Christ: The Churches as Communities and Agents of Peace building” (§§ 46-78). The first part (§§ 46-49) describes “The Nature and Mission of the Church” in the terms of the Faith and Order Commission paper published under the same title in 2005. This leads into a section on “The Vocation and Ministry of Peace-building in the Churches” (§§ 50-51) and another on “The Church as Sacrament of Peace” (§§ 52-55).” That “the Church is a sacrament of God’s peace,” we read (§55), “is the source of its being able to be a prophetic sign and instrument of God’s peace in the world.” Thereafter follows a section on “The Churches as Prophetic Sign in Peace-building” (§§ 56-57) and a long development on “The Churches as Instruments of Peace- building” (§§ 58-73). The chapter closes with comments on “The Spiritual Practices of Peace” (§§ 74-78). In chapter three, “On the Way towards Just Peace — The Scope of the Churches’ Engagement” (§§ 79-117), the writers review recent developments in Christian peace thinking and peace practices” (cf. “Christian Peace Traditions,” §§ 88-104). “From the differing traditions of Christian peacemaking,” they assert, “just peacemaking has created a common pathway appropriate for our time. The older traditions of Christian pacifism and just war theory no longer control peace thinking” (§89). Moreover, we read a little further on, “both pacifism and just use traditions, including just war, share the same Christian norm for the use of force – nonviolence (…) Both dedicate themselves to the same goal – overcoming violence” (§90). Indeed, “in recent decades pacifists and just use advocates have found themselves to be working allies time and again” (§94) —working together to promote a “just peace” that reflects “a much broader scope.” Today all agree that “Christian peacemaking is far more than a firewall for containing conflict; it consists in practices that constitute a whole way of life for the People of the Way” (§100). It consists also in practices that build “Just Institutions in a Just Order” (§§ 105-113) and cares for creation. “In short,” the statement concludes, “both the world within —peace-building as soul-craft —and the world without—peace-building in and with just institutions—cry for peacemakers. Earth cries for Christians who will join others to make peace within creation in the same moment they make peace with creation” (§116). HISTORIC PEACE CHURCH PERSPECTIVES ON “THE INITIAL STATEMENT” Unlike some previous moments in the history of Historic Peace Church responses to World Council of Churches statements, there has been no common HPC reply to the “Initial Statement.” But there have been at least six different answers from national Mennonite churches, Friends Yearly Meetings, and related groups. While this may not seem like many, it is a significant number when compared to the total number ofN. 78 / Fall 2010Bulletin / Centro Pro Unione 7 responses from all churches to the “Initial Statement.” Certainly it is enough, as we shall see, to give some sense of the reception of “Initial Statement” in Historic Peace Church circles, both in general and in relation to the specific chapters of the document. Reception in general: broad affirmation To summarize in a word, Historic Peace Churches have welcomed warmly the “Initial Statement.” In their responses, compliments abound: •“It is with great joy that we greet ‘Glory to God and Peace on Earth,’ both the planned convocation and the ‘Initial Statement Towards an Ecumenical Declaration on Just Peace,” write the Christian and Interfaith Relations Committee of the American Friends General Conference (page 1). We appreciate the “Meditative Introduction,” with its confession that God is the foundation for everything we can say and do to promote peace. We appreciate the Statement’s spirit of repentance. We appreciate the fact that it lifts up the life and teachings of Christ. We appreciate the declaration that the peace of God embraces the whole of creation. •“ (…) We are grateful,” add the Dutch Friends Yearly Meeting, “that the World Council of Churches has placed the issue of the use of deadly force in conflict situations high on the agenda by its endeavor to develop a ‘declaration of just peace’,”(p. 1). •The statement is excellent, profound, powerful and helpful, says Mennonite Church Canada. “The suggestions we make are designed to clarify and strengthen what is already a valuable document” (p. 1). •The Theological Working Group of Church and Peace, a European network of Peace Churches, communities, peace organizations and individual Christians, introduced their response to the “Initial Statement” with a string of laudatory remarks. “We thank you for this text (…) and its wonderfully comprehensive vision for the peace of Christ among us. We applaud in particular the reflection on the Scriptures in this document, beginning with God’s own Peace Declaration in the announcement to the Shepherds in the Field, and then including biblical passages throughout the document. (…) We are thankful for the importance given to the concept of discipleship (…) We appreciate the concrete proposals for how the Church can act as peace- builder (…) we applaud the importance given to the distinctiveness of the Church as the Household of God (…) In all of these points, we have gained greatly by studying the Initial Statement. We thank you for your contribution to a general statement of the Churches that will help to strengthen our common witness to Christ’s overcoming the violence of our ripped and torn world.” Reception in particular: critical perspectives Of course, there is more than “amen” and “hallelujah” in the Historic Peace Church responses to the “Initial Statement.” One finds both strong consent for and serious objection to basic elements of each chapter. The God of Peace and the Peace of God In the responses to the first chapter, “The God of Peace and the Peace of God,” there is indeed uniform affirmation of “the wonderfully comprehensive vision for the peace of Christ among us,” as the Theological Working Group of Church and Peace put it. Further, the Friends General Conference (USA) state that the Historic Peace Churches will find the sections on “Peace and the oikos or Household of God” and “God Revealed in the Trinity” (§§ 18-26) “very helpful in ecumenical dialogue (…) and (…) in broadening the understanding of the call to that divine peace that embraces the whole of creation. We regard (these paragraphs),” 9 they write, “as constituting a real and most welcome breakthrough in ecumenical dialogue concerning the centrality of peace witness to Christian faith and practice.” Mennonite Church USA appreciates that the “Initial Statement” tries to take account of violence at many levels and in many forms. “We urge you to continue to hold together the macro and the micro, violence at the private/personal level and the violence of war, the oikos of planet Earth and the oikos of each individual and family.” Yet, all is not perfect. If the “Initial Statement’s” vision for peace” elicits Historic Peace Church praise, its conceptualization of “violence” (cf. §§ 29-33) is thought to be problematic. For the Friends General Conference, the word normally has moral import. That is, if an act is an act of violence, then it is morally wrong. To define violence as “a trespassing into the space each living thing rightfully requires,” as is done in the Initial Statement, and then to extend it to the whole of creation is difficult and confusing. For Mennonite Church Canada, the word and concept of “violence” is inadequate as a term to designate the opposite of shalom. To describe the negation of “peace” a bigger concept and word than violence are needed—a concept and word like “evil” or “sin.” Subject also to Historic Peace Church critique in this chapter are its Christological perspectives. While Mennonite Church USA commends the statement’s authors for grounding their declaration in the life, teaching, death and resurrection of Jesus, they urge more consistent development of this Christology as the basis for the decisions and actions proposed in the statement. “Our peacemaking involves putting on the mind of Christ and being led by the Spirit,” they write, “apart from this, it is impossible.” The Netherlands Yearly Meeting of Friends appreciate the biblical grounding of the statement but has “some difficulty with those parts of chapter 1 that are very theological and Trinitarian in nature (…) In our tradition we would rather ground a statement on Just Peace on the message of peace that Jesus preached, and his own non-violent way of life (…). The Friends General Conference levels a similar critique more strongly. We are 9 Paragraphs §§ 19-26.8 Bulletin / Centro Pro UnioneN. 78 / Fall 2010 troubled by the “conspicuous absence of the sort of Biblical hermeneutic that focuses on the life and teachings of Jesus “ (ref. §§ 19-26). “We are troubled that there is no hint in the Initial Statement of the Gospel account, particularly in Mark, of Jesus Christ’s non-violent confrontation of injustice, hypocrisy…” The theological working group of Church and Peace echo and extend these sentiments. Given the drafting groups stated desire to avoid specialized theological language, these theologians are surprised by the specialized Trinitarian terminology (§§ 22-25). They advocate instead for founding peace theology on the calling to following Jesus Christ—as was done in the preamble of the Initial Statement (§ 12). Furthermore, they think that the Initial Statement fails to reflect on the implications of Jesus’ word to ‘love enemies’. In the Name of Christ: The Churches as Communities and Agents of Peace Building You will remember that Chapter 2, “In the Name of Christ: The Churches as Communities and Agents of Peace Building,” opens with a development on “The Nature and the Mission of the Church.” This title and much of the content of the section come the Faith and Order Commission’s 2005 document by the same name. The Friends General Conference says simply, “we can unite with these sections.” Their approval of the paragraphs on the “Churches as Prophetic Sign in Peace-Building” is worded more strongly: “We are delighted to unite with this section (…) which is powerful and, once approved, a section that we would want to bring to the attention of our own meetings” (p. 6).” They regard the paragraphs in this chapter on “The Churches as Instruments of Peace-building” as “a crucial element of the Initial Statement, as it articulates the practical import of the Church’s peace witness.” They hope that the peace actions called for in this chapter “will characterize the churches in the years to come…” (p. 6). Problematic for these Friends, however, is the statement’s section on “The Church as a Sacrament of Peace” (§§ 52-55). “What gives us pause,“ they write, “is the language that seems to restrict the in-breaking power of God to draw people towards God’s peace. We do not think God is limited by God’s own sacraments (…) We do not believe that liturgy is the only window on the eschatological hope of bringing together all things in Christ” (p. 6). For Mennonite Church Canada, the Initial Statement’s ecclesiological dimension is seriously deficient. “There is need,” they write, “to strengthen a compelling, persistent, consistent, and pervasive ecclesiology throughout the document.” It is true that the opening paragraphs of chapter two provide “a very strong ecclesial foundation.” But this foundation quickly disappears. The church is no longer presented primarily as “a sacrament of the presence of peace,” or as “a key locus of peace,” but as a “strategic actor (activist) for peace. (…) While the strategies of mediation, education, healing, restorative justice, advocacy, and such are critically important, the option of inviting persons into full participation in a community that is founded on and grounded in the peace of Jesus Christ is not identified as an important strategic option. (…).” In other words, the Church is not presented as an “inviting space for the peace it is proclaiming”—which is, after all, the vocation of the Church. In the end, the Church is reduced from “being sacrament” to “acting for peace.” On the Way Towards Peace: The Scope of the Churches’ Engagement The third chapter of the Initial Statement, “On the Way Towards Peace, The Scope of the Churches Engagement” is based on the claim that “from the differing traditions of Christian peace making, just peacemaking has created a common pathway for our time. The older traditions of Christian pacifism and just war theory no longer control peace thinking” (§89) (…) In recent decades pacifists and just use advocates have found themselves to be working allies time and time again” (§94). Do Historic Peace Churches respondents agree? Yes and no! The Friends General Conference say that they welcome “recognition of the converging evolutions of the pacifist and just war traditions. (…) Nonetheless, pacifist and ‘just use’ positions remain distinct” (p. 8). The Netherlands Yearly Meeting of Friends state the same perspective more strongly: “The concept of Just Peace is being introduced as a synthesis of the former antithesis between those churches that embraced the Just War d octrine and those churches that opted for a radical pacifist position. Although we applaud that the churches of the former category, which are in the majority in the WCC, have become much more cautious in condoning the use of violence, the antithesis mentioned cannot yet be said to be overcome. In our view this antithesis is incorrectly being presented as a gradual rather than a principal difference…” The Church and Peace Theological Working Group articulate similar sentiments. Previously in their response, this group had already confessed some stronger feelings: “We find it very troubling that pacifism and ‘justified use’ are grouped together with the claim that they ‘share the same Christian norm for the use of force – nonviolence. This is simply not true.” In their response to chapter three, they add: “We agree that there is now a common pathway between the different traditions of Christian peacemaking that is appropriate for our time (§89) but feel strongly that the pathway should be extended to working together to transcend the ‘just use’ theory.” All Historic Peace Church respondents would certainly agree. Mennonite Church USA wishes more attention would be paid in the declaration to saying “no” to the violence of war. “The Declaration on Just Peace,” they say, “must plead with the church of the just war tradition to make the theory of just war operative.” It should also include a strong call to the churches to dramatically increase commitment in support of “unarmed Christian soldiers for peace.” For Mennonite Church Canada, the concept of the “exceptional use of ‘killing violence’ contradicts the broad definitions” in the statement, both of theN. 78 / Fall 2010Bulletin / Centro Pro Unione 9 “faces of violence” and the “spirituality of peace.” They find a contradiction also between the presentation of nonviolence as the faithful expression of shalom, and the developments on the just use of violence by Christians exercising the “responsibility to protect” vulnerable populations. Church and Peace says it this way: “We invite all churches to resist with us the temptation of justifying the use of deadly weapons even as a last resort. (…) What is needed is a commitment of the churches to lay down our lives rather than to take the lives of others as a last resort.” CONCLUSION: FURTHER ALONG THE WAY I would like to conclude this lecture and review of Historic Peace Churches perspectives on the International Ecumenical Peace Convocation with three observations or questions. The first is that when we compare the experience of interaction between the Historic Peace Church community and the WCC community in the DOV and the IEPC, there seems to be greater proximity and greater convergence of views than in the previous periods of interaction around matters of war, peace and nonviolence. At the same time, fundamental divergence remains—and remains in regard to the most problematic issue historically, that is, the issue of lethal violence as a last resort. What is the normative Christian response of last resort, to lay down one’s life or to take another’s life? The second observation is rooted in one of the suggestions in the joint Catholic Church / Mennonite World Conference statement formulated in this place. “We recommend,” they/we said, “that the Convocation in 2011 work toward the goal of achieving an ecumenical consensus on ways Christians might advocate, together, to replace violence as a means to resolve serious conflicts in society.” Has the “Initial Statement” adequately carried forward this recommendation? I believe that is an open question and the conclusions still debatable. Finally, it is still a little too early to know what impact, if any, the Historic Peace Churches responses to the “Initial Statement” is having in the shaping of the Ecumenical Declaration of Just Peace. We must wait a few more months to have a first glimpse of the work of the second drafting group. In the meantime, I will leave you with a few off-the- record words I received on this question last week, from a Colombian Mennonite member of the group: “The second statement is completely new,” he writes, “about six pages or so, and is meant to be much more accessible to a wider non-theological audience, and even to a non-Christian one. Nevertheless, I think it takes a strong nonviolent, anti-war, Jesus-centered stance, touching on an ecclesiology of peace. But undoubtedly with so many erudite people looking at it around the globe, it’s enough to give me the willies…!” That last sentence describes how exactly I feel about giving you this lecture this evening! Still, I am assuming that you are a friendly group and that in the period of discussion we are about to enter, there will be no need for protection or for me to lay down my life as a last resort. Thank you for commitment to all things that give “glory to God and peace on earth.”Next >