ECUMENICAL TRENDS
Vol 40 No 7 n Graymoor Ecumenical & Interreligious Institute
A Ministry of the Franciscan Friars of the Atonement
Peace and the Protestant Traditions
S
uppose you are watching The News Hour on public televi-
sion. The President of the United States has been consider-
ing a new military initiative in response to a troubled hotspot
somewhere in the world. Several Protestant religious leaders have
been assembled on a panel to share perspectives about the
proposed combat. Each of them quotes from the Bible to make
their case. And they disagree. How can this be?
Answers to this question will take us on a brief exploration of
the importance of the Bible for Protestants, how the term peace
is used in New Testament texts, an overview of perspectives about
peace by Protestant founders, how those perspectives are echoed
in current thinking, and some concrete examples of ways that
twentieth century Protestants addressed issues of peace in the midst
of wars, hot and cold.
The Authority of the Bible
To understand how Protestant traditions have addressed issues
of non-violence and peace, it is necessary to step back and reflect on
the basis on which Protestants make their claims. For Christians,
the Bible is the authoritative source and norm of faith. Christians
believe that God chooses to self-disclose through history. We believe
that the Bible tells the story of Gods relationship to humanity with
sufficient information to enable Christians, and by implication, all
people, to know how they should live. It gives adequate glimpses
into the nature of God and Gods relationship with us, indeed with
all creation, to inform our spiritual and temporal lives.
But already we are into thick weeds. When Christians seek
guidance about Gods desires for peace-making, or even more per-
ilously, about Gods intentions for peace-making in a particular
time and place, who decides? On what basis? Should everything in
the Bible be treated with equal weight? Some Protestants would
assert that this is so.1 Should a particular key be used to evaluate
the texts? Other Protestants would say yes. They would assert
that the appropriate method to evaluate all texts is the full story
of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Even that key,
however, opens several doors, and leads to multi-faceted interpre-
tations in response to the question What would Jesus do?
In thIs Issue
Peace and the Protestant traditions
Diane c. keSSler.......................................................... Page 1
One in Faith, sacramental Life and Piety
Jeffrey GroS, fSc........................................................ Page 8
n July/August 2011
By Diane C. Kessler
In the nineteenth century and beyond, this split in how the text
should be approached was magnified with the advent of historical
Biblical criticism. Those who used this approach asked questions
like the following: when and in what context was a particular part
of Scripture written? Who wrote it? How was it originally used?
How can this information help contemporary Christians under-
stand Gods intentions? This approach to the texts is threatening to
those who think that every word in the Bible is divinely inspired.
My own spiritual life has been enriched by the work of aca-
demics using historical Biblical criticism. I agree with the Welsh
Protestant New Testament scholar C.H. Dodd who said the
Bible contains a good deal which if it is taken out of a temporary
historical context and given general and permanent validity is simply
pernicious. The old dogmatic view of the Bible, therefore, is not
only open to attack from the standpoint of science and historical
criticism, but if taken seriously it becomes a danger to religion and
public morals.2 These, however, are fighting words to a Biblical
literalist!
Classical Protestant theologians teach that individual believers
seek to understand the will of God primarily by using the Bible as
source and norm. It nourishes our relationship with God. We also
are guided by the Holy Spirit, and informed by reason and experi-
ence (including the experience of Christians through the ages,
which we call tradition). This I-Thou relationship is pre-eminent
in moral discernment. As the Apostle Paul said, now we see in a
mirror, dimly (1 Cor. 13:12a), but we trust that these means
provide sufficient light to guide us. Protestants also traditionally
have been encouraged to discuss our perspectives freely with each
other in the context of the church. This combination of the
continued on page 2
The Reverend Dr. Diane C. Kessler is a well-known ecumenist
and a member of the Joint Working Group between the World
Council of Churches and the Roman Catholic Church. She is
retired Executive Director of the Massachusetts Council of
Churches and has authored or edited six books and many articles
on subjects associated with the ecumenical movement.
here I Walk, an ecumenical Pilgrimage
Sarah hinlicky WilSon ............................................Page 12
Peace and the Protestant traditions, from page 1

authority of Scripture in relationship to the individual believer

helps us understand why Protestant Christians can come to such
radically differing understandings about peace-making in particular
situations.
Clarification of Terms
Before continuing, I would like to clarify how I am using the
term peace in this presentation. The New Testament, which
draws on the Hebrew Scriptures concept of shalom, or whole-
ness, deals with several kinds of peace. In a letter that the Apostle
Paul wrote to Christians in the city of Philippi, he says And the
peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your
hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus. (Phil. 4:7)3 The peace about
which Paul speaks here is an internal peace rooted in the very
nature of God a state of inner calm regardless of external cir-
cumstances, grounded in a confidence in Gods compassionate,
forgiving, loving nature. We see another kind of peace operating
when disagreements have surfaced in a community. Paul encoun-
tered such a situation among members of the church in Corinth. He
writes: Now I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, by the name of
our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you be in agreement and that there
be no divisions among you For it has been reported to me by Chloes
people that there are quarrels among you. (1 Cor. 1:10a, 11)
Here the peace which is sought is the satisfactory resolution of
verbally-based conflicts and the preservation of community life. A
more encompassing understanding of peace comes from Jesus
Sermon on the Mount, when he says Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they will be called children of God. (Matt. 5:9) The charac-
teristic of peace-making named by Jesus is one of activity in support
of peace, whatever the context interpersonal, familial, communal,
national, international. Peace-makers are called children of God
because they are sharing in Gods reconciling nature. This sweeping
dictum encourages Christians to counter violence in whatever
form, even as they seek peace with justice. As I reflect on peace in
the Protestant traditions, I especially will focus on Protestant ideas
about peace-making in situations of conflict, though in conclusion,
I also will say a few words about peace and Protestant spirituality.
When I finished working on this talk I was struck by the irony that
I seem to speak about war and violence as much as I do about
peace! This is not surprising, however, because the Biblical mandate
to be peace-makers assumes the occurrence of some rupture that
needs reconciliation.
I have one additional clarifying comment about terms. Note
that I continue to use the plural, traditions, when speaking about
Protestants. A variety of historical, social, and political contexts
The New Testament, which draws
on the Hebrew Scriptures concept
of shalom, or wholeness, deals
with several kinds of peace.
helped to shape the theologies and social ethics of early sixteenth
and seventeenth-century Protestant reformers. In a number of
cases, the positions have been modified by contemporary inheritors
of these traditions, with benefit of hindsight about how the theories
worked out in practice. Before examining contemporary Protestant
perspectives about peace, however, I want to offer a quick survey
of ideas among some Protestant founding leaders. In doing this,
I risk sacrificing nuance for the sake of brevity. Nevertheless,
this overview will give us a context and base-line from which to
consider twentieth- and twenty-first century ideas about peace.
Brief Historical Overview on Peace among Protestant Leaders
In 1517, the Augustinian friar Martin Luther penned a list of
problems he saw in his Roman Catholic Church. Luther posted
this ninety-five paragraph critique on the door of a church in
Wittenberg, Germany. His action had a catalytic effect, energiz-
ing a chorus of voices that had been erupting periodically during
the previous century. Vigorous debates and power struggles
ensued among both religious and civil leaders. They eventually
resulted in a rupture between the Roman Catholic Church and
German congregations influenced by Luthers thinking, each side
supported by several German princes.
One aspect of Luthers thought is especially relevant to our
explorations. Luthers worldview was of two realms. One belongs
to God and is embodied on earth by the church a revivified
church consistent with Luthers teachings. The other realm is sub-
ject to the influence of Satan and is under the purview of the state.
Christians straddle these two realms. On the one hand, they live in
the church, which is the community of those who are saved by
grace through faith in Christ. On the other, they exist in the state,
which is responsible for providing law and order in the face of sin
and disorder. Christians experience spiritual freedom through the
church, but according to Luther, they should be obedient to the
state in temporal matters.4
continued on page 3

ecumenical trends
eDitor, James loughran, Sa n aSSociate eDitor, timothy i. MacDonald, Sa n BuSineSS ManaGer, Veronica Sullivan, editorial office n
ecumenical trends, 475 riverside Drive, rm. 1960, new york, ny 10115 n Business and Subscription office, Graymoor ecumenical &
interreligious institute, Po Box 333, Garrison, ny 10524-0333.
Manuscripts sent to the editor should be in either WordPerfect or Microsoft Word. it is preferable to electronically transfer submitted texts using
the software above via e-mail to jlgeii@aol.com. Ecumenical Trends is published eleven times a year (monthly except august) by the Graymoor
ecumenical & interreligious institute. Ecumenical Trends is a member of the associated church Press and the catholic Press association, and is
listed in the Catholic Periodical and Literature Index and Religion Index One: Periodicals. Microfilm copies are available from national archive
Publishing company: P.o. Box 998, ann arbor, Mi 48106-0998. Subscription rates are $25.00 per year (u.S.); $27 per year (canada, Mexico and
elsewhere), bulk rates are available upon request. address for Subscriptions: Graymoor ecumenical & interreligious institute Po Box 333,
Garrison, ny 10524-0333 (iSSn 0360 9073) Periodicals Postage Paid at Garrison, ny 10524 and additional Mailing offices. Website: www.geii.org

JuLY/AuGust 2011 2/98 ecumenIcAL trends

Peace and the Protestant traditions, from page 2
Can a Christian, then, in good conscience be a soldier and
participate in armed conflict? This was a pressing question for
sixteenth century Christians whose leaders could be quite com-
bative. In 1530, Luthers spiritual compatriot Philip Melanchthon
answered this question in the Augsburg Confession. Article XVI
reads It is taught among us that all government and all estab-
lished rule and laws were instituted and ordained by God for the
sake of good order, and that Christians may without sin occupy
civil offices punish evildoers with the sword, engage in just
wars, serve as soldiers etc. Accordingly Christians are obliged
to be subject to civil authority and obey its commands and laws in
all that can be done without sin. But when commands of the civil
authority cannot be obeyed without sin, we must obey God rather
than men (Acts 5:29).5 So the short answer to whether a Christian
also can be a soldier is yes, with qualifications. If we fast-
forward four hundred years, we see how seductive it could be for
an overwhelmingly powerful Nazi ideology to obscure the fine dis-
tinctions laid out in Article XVI, for the church to be absorbed by
the aims of a militant state, and to be compromised in the process.
Another branch of Protestantism, centered in Switzerland, was
developed by sixteenth-century Reformed theologians Huldrich
Zwingli, based in Zurich, and John Calvin in Geneva. These
Reformers stressed Gods sovereign authority over creation. Both
turned to the study of Scripture for the development of their
theology and ethics, each with a significantly different emphasis
from the other, and both from Luther. When it comes to peace,
however, they were products of their times. If you visit the
Wasserkirche in Zurich today, you see a statue of Zwingli holding
a Bible in one hand and a sword in the other. Zwingli, in fact, was
killed in a battle against Catholic cantons in 1531.
When it comes to peace, however,
they were products of their times.
Calvin, who developed a systematic theology call the
Institutes, says this about war and peace:
it is sometimes necessary for kings and peoples to undertake
war. For if the power is given to them to preserve the peace of
their country and territory, to repress the sedition of quarrelsome
people and enemies of the peace, to help those who suffer from
violence, to punish evildoers, could they put it to better use than to
break and destroy the efforts of those by whom the repose of each
individual as well as the common peace of all is troubled, and who
seditiously cause agitation, violence, oppressions, and other evil?6
So Calvin, like Luther, sees a place for Christian citizens to
become soldiers in state-sanctioned conflicts.
In contrast to the positions of Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin,
some Swiss Protestants were so repulsed by the wars around
Zurich that they separated themselves from Zwinglis ideas. To
make their case, they also quoted Scripture. They cited Jesuss
words from Matthew 5:39: But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer.
But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also
They thought that church and state should be viewed separately.
ecumenIcAL trends
Although the state encompasses everyone, true followers of Christ
are more limited in number. How can the state be considered
Christian, they asked, if it goes to war? In contrast, they
observed, Jesus said to Love your enemies and pray for those who
persecute you, so that you may be children of your Father in
heaven (Matt. 5:44-45a) This radical stance prompted both
Catholics and Protestants to persecute these people, who were
dubbed Anabaptists. They were drowned, burned, and banished
(not a very charitable approach to ones enemies). Some of them
managed to emigrate to Holland, which provided sanctuary to a
variety of dissenting groups, where they came to be known as
Mennonites. Some Mennonites later made their way to Pennsylvania,
and now are identified as one of the historic Protestant peace
churches.
Whereas the Anabaptists focused on recovering life as it was
lived in the early church, the Quakers (or Society of Friends) had
a more personal emphasis. They wanted each believer to recover
life as it had been lived by Christ. This movement was begun in
seventeenth-century England by George Fox (1624-1691). Fox
thought Christianity was primarily a religion of the Spirit. He
abjured all external forms of church. He believed in the equality of
all people men and women a radical concept at the time. In a
Quaker service (or meeting), the congregation would sit in silence
and await the Spirit of God to lead one or more members to speak.
Quakers refused to participate in militias because, among other
things, the military was based on rank, whereas Quakers avoided
both titles and the inherent inequalities of the military system. In
an interesting convergence of ideas, however, not all Quakers were
pacifists. Quakers also believed in freedom of conscience (a strong
strain among all Protestants). They objected to war, but because
of freedom of conscience, respected the choices of individual
Quakers. Like the Mennonites, some Quakers also eventually
found a safe haven in Pennsylvania, under the leadership of the
Quaker, William Penn.
Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, Anabaptists, Fox and the Quakers
all these Protestants turned to the Bible to make their case. Yet
while many sanctioned violence by the state and permitted Christian
participation in it, others separated themselves and adopted a
pacifist position. This continues to be true for contemporary
Protestants, but much has happened in the past century to refine
and recalibrate Protestant perspectives about peace. And it is to
this history fresh in the minds of our parents, grandparents and
great-grandparents that I now turn.
Twentieth-Century Challenges, an Ecumenical Response
Although Protestant confessional identities continued to be
strong in the twentieth century, a fresh ecumenical wind began to
blow through these churches, shaping and challenging previous
ideas about war and peace. Protestant missionaries, students,
Christian educators, lay and religious leaders from a variety of
traditions began to gather together in a series of international
meetings as early as the World Missionary Conference in 1910.
They came together in like groupings to address their divisions, to
seek common ground, and to speak with one voice where possible
about the problems confronting the world. Ideas about peace were
continued on page 4
3/99 JuLY/AuGust 2011
Peace and the Protestant traditions, from page 3
developed especially through the ecumenical movement which,
until mid-century, was primarily a European/North American
Protestant phenomenon. These ideas about peace were forged in
the crucible of conflicts that were sweeping in scale and devastat-
ing in result.
Just think about what was happening during fifty tumultuous
years. Some have called World War I a Christian civil war
because it involved European countries, whose citizens were
predominantly Christian, in prolonged armed conflict using
devastating new weapons. Christians once again wrestled with
their responsibilities during years leading to the Second World
War. As that war ended, a so-called cold war followed, primarily
between the Soviet Union and the United States, with a variety of
countries drawn into the orbit of these two powers. This period also
saw the disintegration of colonialism, and growing consciousness
about the values of pluralism.
Nevertheless, the major differences about war and peace
which had surfaced in the sixteenth century continued unabated
in the twentieth. In 1973 the Central Committee of the World
Council of Churches issued a report titled Violence, Nonviolence
and the Struggle for Social Justice.7 The report followed a two-
year study by Christian scholars and activists from just war and
historic peace churches. They identified not two, but three radically
different points of view, and concluded that these perspectives
could not be reconciled.
The three perspectives they identified are as follows:
nonviolent action is the only possibility consistent with obedi-
ence to Jesus Christthis discipline is hard and will often be
unsuccessful. [but]nonviolence [should not be justified] only by
its success as a strategy for solving social problems
violent resistance as a Christian duty [is acceptable] in extreme
circumstances[if] criteria similar to those governing a just war
[are applied]. Not only must the cause be just and all other possi-
bilities exhausted, but also there must be reasonable expectation
that violent resistance will attain the ends desired, the methods
must be just and there must be a positive understanding of the order
which will be established after the violence succeeds
in situations of violence [in which people already find them-
selves]they cannot help but participate. Nonviolence does not
present itself as an option unless they would withdraw totally from
the struggle for justice. In this situation the problem becomes to
reduce the sum total of violence in the situation and to liberate
human beings for just and peaceful relations with each other8
In these three perspectives, we hear the echoes of distinct
voices from the Reformation, tempered by the experiences of the
twentieth century, and forged in the midst of ongoing struggles.
Protestant Approaches to Peace Some Specific Examples
With this history as backdrop, and with these distinct approaches
to peace in mind, I now want to offer a series of examples of how
twentieth century Protestants have approached violence and its
threat, struggled with the best ways to resist systemic evil, and
sought to promote peace with justice. Their ideas and actions were
forged in the context of particular situations. As delegates to the 1937
Oxford Conference on Church, Community and State observed:
there is peril in general propositions, true as they may be.
The call to Christians to repent and submit their lives anew to God
JuLY/AuGust 2011
Nevertheless, the major
differences about war and peace
which had surfaced in the
sixteenth century continued
unabated in the twentieth.
in Christ has to be obeyed in the midst of the concrete realities of
the common life, where decisions have to be taken and acts with
all their irrevocable consequences done.9
These situations often were fraught with ambiguity. Sometimes
the responses were taken with great risk and required enormous
courage. At other times, the positions seem unambiguous but
follow-through was lacking.
In these examples, I see six common threads:
1) a respect for dialogue as a means to increase understanding,
reduce tensions, and promote the peaceful resolution of conflicts.
2) the inclination to widen the tent in other words, to consider
problems in as broad a context as possible, directly involving the
affected parties. Thus, ecumenical and interfaith consultation and
action take on a pre-eminent role.
3) an increasing sense of solidarity with afflicted peoples as they
become more involved in the conversations;
4) the inclination to respond to particular situations with increasingly
specific actions, often resulting in disquiet and controversy among
congregations, within denominations, and among ecumenical
organizations;
5) an awareness that the search for peace must be accompanied
by a respect for justice. The two are inextricably intertwined.
6) an understanding that witness is more effective if made together,
through ecumenical or interfaith initiatives.
Inherent in these observations is a confidence in the idea that
building relationships is an essential means to peace-building in
social and political contexts.
Now, to some examples to illustrate these points. The two
world wars were a tragic stimulus to consider the best ways to
promote peace. Immediately following the beginning of the First
World War, the World Alliance for Promoting International
Friendship through the Churches was formed in 1914 to help
foster peace among nations. When the group met in Prague in
1925, they issued the following statement: The Christian
Churches are under obligation to support all efforts to advance
the cause of peace [and to] render possible the universal
acceptance of international law in place of war, [and the] immediate
reduction of all armaments10 This appeal echoed the visionary
ideas embodied in the League of Nations, established in 1919.
When delegates gathered for an ecumenical life and work
conference, held in Oxford in 1937 just before the outbreak of the
continued on page 5
4/100 ecumenIcAL trends
Peace and the Protestant traditions, from page 4
Second World War, they said The church is under obligation never
to lose sight of its one supreme calling to bear costly witness, in
deed as well as in word, to the higher way of life in Christ.11
German churches wrestled with their role vis--vis the state as
Nazis came to power. When Hitler formed a so-called national
church, a minority of Lutheran, Reformed, and United churches
formed a Confessional Synod of the German Evangelical
Church. In 1934, at great risk, this small group issued what
now is known as the Barmen Declaration. Basing their claims on
Scripture, the delegates rejected the idea that the State, beyond its
responsibility to provide for justice and peace, should be an
all-encompassing, totalitarian guide, usurping the vocation of the
Church and the sovereignty of God. Lutheran pastor Dietrich
Bonhoeffer was among the signers. He chose to participate in the
German resistance movement, and was arrested in 1943. He was
executed by the Nazis in 1945. Bonhoeffer now is commemorated
as a Christian martyr who chose a variety of means, including
participation in the plot to assassinate Hitler, actively to resist Nazi
tyranny. Another signer of the Barmen Declaration, Lutheran
pastor Martin Niemoller, had been an officer on a U-boat in the
Imperial German Navy in World War I. Because of his witness
against the State, he was imprisoned in concentration camps from
1937 to 1945. In the 1950s, Niemoller became an anti-war activist
and persuasive pacifist who reached out to churches in the Soviet
Union during the cold war.
Following the Second World War, with its loss of life,
displacement of peoples, concentration camps, the Holocaust, and
the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Protestants
continued to wrestle with their responsibilities as peace-makers.
One approach that achieved new prominence in the post-war era
was dialogue face-to-face conversations aimed at reducing
tensions, promoting understanding, discovering shared per-
spectives, resolving conflicts, facilitating rapprochement, and among
Christians, healing divisions and promoting unity.
Following the Second World War,
with its loss of life, displacement
of peoples, concentration camps,
the Holocaust, and the atomic
bombings of Hiroshima and
Nagasaki, Protestants continued
to wrestle with their responsibilities
as peace-makers.
One example of this was the Christian Peace Conference. Its
purpose was to foster dialogue between Christians on different
sides of the Iron Curtain. Josef Hromadka was a prime mover
behind this initiative. He was a theologian, pastor in the Czech
Lutheran Church, and member of the Central Committee of the
World Council of Churches. He had been a chaplain in the First
World War. In an address to The Christian Peace Conference in
1958, Hromadka made a passionate appeal. He said The whole of
ecumenIcAL trends
mankind should unite in an active protest against all mass
destruction weapons by which the mercy of God is defamed and
man and all creatures are betrayed. No Christian should take part
in an atomic war or in its preparation. All Christians are summoned
to do all that is in their might to outlaw any war.12
In the 1960s, the ecumenical table expanded. The World
Council of Churches now included the Orthodox among its mem-
bers. Official relationships with the Roman Catholic Church were
established following Vatican II. Churches in the developing
world, originally established by European and North American
Christian missionaries, were becoming independent. They were
eager to offer perspectives based on their own cultures and situations.
This period has been described as a shift within the ecumenical
movement from attempting to influence those with power to
participating in the struggles of those without it, from giving aid to
historys victims to standing in solidarity with them13 Christian
leaders became increasingly aware of the interplay between
poverty, economic development, social health, human dignity,
structures that promote the responsible use of power, and peace.
We also see growing signs of modesty and humility in moral
decision-making. For example, a 1966 report from the World
Conference on Church and Society observed Because we often
have to act on imperfect information and can never predict all the
consequences of our actions, some of them will harm others in
ways we cannot foresee. We need the grace to learn from experi-
ence and to live in the fellowship of the Church where there is
mutual giving and receiving of forgiveness and correction14
Delegates to this conference turned to the United Nations
Declaration of Human Rights as an international standard against
which the policies of all countries could be measured.
A growing consciousness about the evils of racism was a second
stimulus to thinking about peace-making. In the United States, a
vigorous struggle against racial discrimination was unfolding. In
South Africa, people were dealing with apartheid. These harsh
realities prompted the Church and Society Conference delegates to
sanction civil disobedience. We understand, they said, that laws
may be defied.The decision can only be made for each specific
situation by those who are within it, with full awareness of the
possible consequences. The Church should not withdraw fellow-
ship from Christians who make such a decision.15
Two years later, Baptist pastor Martin Luther King, Jr. was
assassinated. An advocate of non-violence, Dr. King was informed
both by his Christian faith and Gandhis non-violent techniques.
Dr. King had been scheduled to speak at the 1968 World Council
of Churches Assembly in Uppsala. It was in the shadow of
Dr. Kings assassination that the Central Committee of the World
Council of Churches launched the Programme to Combat Racism.
Confessing that churches have participated in racial discrimina-
tion, the Programme was intended to be an ecumenical act of
solidarity. A call to WCC member-churches for self-examination
and release of resources was made. Churches, the appeal said,
should make an analysis of their financial situation in order to
determine the degree to which their financial practices, domestic
and international, contribute to the support of racially oppressive
continued on page 6
5/101 JuLY/AuGust 2011
Peace and the Protestant traditions, from page 5
governments, discriminatory industries and inhuman working
conditions Churches which have benefitted from racially
exploitative economic systems should immediately allocate a
significant portion of their total resources, without employing
paternalistic mechanisms of control, to organizations of the racially
oppressed or organizations supporting victims of racial injustice.16
We see here the result of Christians engaged in dialogue with
colleagues in the midst of life and death struggles; with the moral
leaning toward being in solidarity with the oppressed; and with a
willingness to wade into specific commitments with the risk of
their attending ambiguities, all in the pursuit of peace with justice.
Sometimes dialogue led to distancing as a matter of conscience.
The World Alliance of Reformed Churches had been holding an
ongoing conversation about the religious justification for apartheid
being used by some of its members the white Afrikaans
Reformed Churches of South Africa. In 1982 they said In certain
situations the confession of a church needs to draw a clear line
between truth and error. While acknowledging the members own
guilt in regard to racism, the World Alliance declared a status
confessionis for their churches, meaning that they regarded this as
an issue on which it is not possible to differ without seriously jeop-
ardizing the integrity of our common confession as Reformed
churches. Thus, they reluctantly and painfully suspended these
churches from the privileges of membership until the churches
gave evidence of a change of heart, through specific actions
which were enumerated.17 And yet these delegates creatively left
a crack in the door. They chose suspension, not ousting, thus leaving
some space for potential re-entry.
Sometimes dialogue led to distancing
as a matter of conscience.
At the peak of the apartheid crisis in South Africa in 1988, an
ecumenical group of theologians wrote what they called the
Kairos Covenant, in which they asserted that there can be no
true reconciliation and no genuine peace without justice.18 The
signers offered a bold caution to those who might seek peace by
papering over the sins of injustice and oppression. Here we see in
sharp relief the linkage between the two concepts a linkage that
is reiterated in ecumenical documents in the following years.
This link was made visible in the title of a World Council of
Churches Convocation on Justice, Peace and the Integrity of
Creation, held in Seoul, Korea in 1990. Among a series of ten
affirmations issued by that convocation, the sixth strongly pro-
claims The only possible basis for lasting peace is justice
(Isa.32:17). Drawing on several Biblical references, the text says
that churches have a reconciling role, but notes that this responsi-
bility often requires the conscious acceptance of vulnerability.
The signers then affirm that Christians are called to seek every
possible means of establishing justice, achieving peace and solving
conflicts by active non-violence. They resist doctrines and systems
of security based on the use of, and deterrence by, all weapons of
mass destruction, and military invasions, interventions and occu-
pations. They commit themselves to practice non-violence in
JuLY/AuGust 2011
all personal relationships, to work for the banning of war as a
legally recognized means of resolving conflicts, and to press
governments for the establishment of an international legal order
of peace-making.19
Yet another initiative to address peace-making will be occur-
ring in Jamaica the week following this dialogue. As a culmination
of the World Council of Churches Decade to Overcome Violence,
an International Ecumenical Peace Convocation will bring together
ideas and experiences of peace-making in particular situations by
people around the world. An Ecumenical Call to Just Peace is
being issued in conjunction with the convocation. Copies are being
made available to participants in this gathering.
Closer to home, during my tenure as executive director of the
Massachusetts Council of Churches, Christian religious leaders
conferred frequently among themselves and with colleagues of
other faiths (particularly Jews and Muslims). We explored ways
to work together to encourage the cessation of violence and to
promote peace with justice, especially between Israelis and
Palestinians. One strategy we used was to develop some talking
points for peacemaking.20 Because the points are ethical middle
axioms, they apply to any context where conflict exists or is
threatened. These points use short, memorable phrases. We
encouraged people of faith to refer to them repeatedly in private
and public conversations, in written statements and in verbal
presentations.
We grouped the points under three shared principles: our
shared heritage as children of God; our shared heritage as ethical
religions; and our shared belief in Gods will as peace, both spiri-
tual and temporal. A brief listing of these points is as follows:
Our shared heritage as children of God: Lift up common values;
Do not demonize the other; Respect human rights; Avoid prejudicial
stereotyping; Pray for enemies.
Our shared heritage as ethical religions: Promote justice;
Resist revenge; Affirm that just ends are reached by just means;
Adhere to moral principles; Support critical self-reflection;
Respect international law; Encourage peace talks without precon-
ditions; Do not empower extremists by abandoning agreements;
Protect civilian non-combatants; Avoid double standards.
Our shared belief in Gods will as peace, both spiritual and
temporal: Stay grounded in Gods peace; Affirm that peacemaking
is a process, as well as the final goal; Be active in the pursuit of peace.
I have offered these examples to show how Protestants in the
twentieth century have turned to the ecumenical arena to struggle
with overwhelming problems: the responsibilities for peace-
making in the midst of wars hot and cold, the threat of nuclear
weapons, and growing awareness of the link between peace and
justice. We see that witness is more effective if made together,
through ecumenical or interfaith initiatives. Protestants, along with
Roman Catholic and Orthodox colleagues, have demonstrated a
respect for dialogue as a means to increase understanding, reduce
tensions and promote the peaceful resolution of conflicts. We have
matured in our practice of considering problems in as broad a
context as possible, directly involving the affected parties. We have
continued on page 7
6/102 ecumenIcAL trends
Peace and the Protestant traditions, from page 6
We see that witness is more
effective if made together,
through ecumenical or interfaith
initiatives.
nurtured an increasing sense of solidarity with afflicted peoples as
they become more involved in the conversations. In so doing, we
have become aware that the search for peace must be accompanied
by a respect for justice. We see a tendency to respond to particular
situations with increasingly specific actions. It is ironic that these
actions often resulted in controversy among congregations and
denominations conflicts which themselves needed to be resolved!
Through these experiences, this process of getting our hands
dirty with complex, messy situations when facts on the ground
remain obscure and the outcome is uncertain, we have learned a
few things.
Dialogue is a powerful tool for healing memories, developing
relationships, and building trust all essential seed-beds for
promoting peace.
Sometimes religious communities can be a bridge between
groups even when political and military relationships are not
possible.
The involvement of religious groups, particularly when working
together, can be a tipping point for positive change.
All this takes a lot of time, energy, patience, and yes money.
A Sober Assessment
Embedded in Protestant ideas about peace-making are
assumptions about human nature. Twentieth-century Protestants
have veered between overly enthusiastic assessments of human
goodness, and overly pessimistic ideas of human corruption. If
people are basically good at heart, then they should be readily
amenable to well-intentioned efforts to promote peace. If, on the
other hand, they are rotten to the core, then any efforts are doomed
to failure. Reformed Protestant theologian Reinhold Niebuhr
ventured between this moral Scylla and Charybdis. In this way of
thinking, the Christian vision of the peaceable kingdom is an ideal
toward which we should strive because it is the will of God, but its
full embodiment forever will lie beyond our reach. As Niebuhr
observed in his book, Moral Man and Immoral Society, The com-
mon members of any national community, while sentimentally
desiring peace, nevertheless indulge impulses of envy, jealousy,
pride, bigotry, and greed which make for conflict between com-
munities.21 Thus, Niebuhr observed that ruptures in relationships
between individuals are more readily mended than those in societies.
The potential for violence is far more dangerous in social contexts,
because it often has the sanction of government and access to
means of control which can inflict pain on large numbers of people.
Thus, in societies some degree of compulsion is necessary to foster
justice and promote peace; but the power necessary to undergird
this compulsion, itself, is subject to the corrupting temptations of
ecumenIcAL trends
privilege. Niebuhr concludes that collective man, operating on
the historic and mundane scene, must content himself with a more
modest goal a society in which there will be enough justice, and
in which coercion will be sufficiently non-violent to prevent his
common enterprise from issuing into complete disaster.22 This
sober understanding of human nature is consistent with earliest
Protestant traditions.
I have referred particularly to Niebuhr because his writings
have continued to be influential both among Christian theologians
and political leaders. In response to the question, Is it possible to
create a culture of peace?, those who share these assumptions
about human nature (I count myself among them) would reply,
Well, yes and no; more and less. But because of our Christian
faith, we must continue to make the effort.
Conclusion
As is evident from this presentation, Protestants have used the
Bible as authoritative source and guide. We have given particular
weight to the relationship between God and the individual believer,
though this relationship occurs in the context of the church. For
the most part, Protestants have not been ascetics. Instead, Protestant
spirituality tends to be one of engagement. We have worked out
our salvation in the world, albeit sometimes in voluntary associa-
tions or groups which have been counter-cultural.
Christians are called to live out our vocation in whatever con-
text they find themselves to be responsible citizens; to exercise
our conscience, informed by the Scriptures and in conversation
with the community of the church, in making moral decisions; to
be aware of the ways that our frail, fallible human nature can
corrupt our perspectives; and to be vigilant for the ways that we
and our churches risk becoming captive to culture. Sometimes we
have allowed facile words to become a substitute for costly
engagement. At our best, however, we pray for peace, in solitude
and in our liturgies; we witness for peace; and we work for peace.
As the Apostle Paul said, So if anyone is in Christ, there is a new
creation: everything old has passed away; see, everything has
become new! All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself
through Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation;
(2 Cor. 5: 17-18)
Presented at the Fifth Annual Buddhist/Christian Dialogue at
the Franciscan Friars of the Atonement at Graymoor, Garrison,
NY on May 13, 2011.
notes:
1. See, for example, the Lausanne Covenant, issued by the International
Congress on World Evangelization, Lausanne, 1974, in which a majority
of participants agreed to a text which includes the following: 2. The
Authority and Power of the Bible. We affirm the divine inspiration, truth-
fulness and authority of both Old and New Testament Scriptures in their
entirety as the only written Word of God, without error in all that it
affirms, and the only infallible rule of faith and practice. Found in The
Ecumenical Movement: An Anthology of Key Texts and Voices, Michael
Kinnamon and Brian E. Cope, Editors (Geneva: WCC Publications,
1997), p. 359.
2. C.H. Dodd, The Authority of the Bible (New York: Harper Torchbooks,
1929; 1960), p. 24.
continued on page 8
7/103 JuLY/AuGust 2011
Peace and the Protestant traditions, from page 7

3. All Biblical quotations are from the New Revised Standard Version of 11. Ibid., p. 270.
The Holy Bible (New York: Oxford University Press, 1989).
12. The Only Future, Documents of the Third Session of the Christian
4. See Christian Unity and Peacemaking: A Lutheran Perspective by Eric Peace Conference, CPC, Prague, 1960, found in Kinnamon and Cope,
W. Gritsch, in The Fragmentation of the Church and Its Unity in Peace- The Ecumenical Movement, p. 250.
making , Jeffrey Gros and John D. Rempel, editors (Grand Rapids, Michi-
gan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2001), pp. 16-33. 13. Ibid., p. 264.
5. John H. Leith, editor, Creeds of the Churches (Atlanta: John Knox 14. Ibid., pp. 292-293.
Press, 1982), The Augsburg Confession (1530), see XVI. Civil Govern-
15. Ibid., pp. 293-294.
ment, pp. 72-73.
16. Ibid., pp. 219-220.
6. Institutes of Christian Religion: 1541 French Edition, John Calvin; Of
Civil Government. 17. Ibid., pp. 222-223.
7. The Ecumenical Movement: An Anthology of Key Texts and Voices, 18. Ibid., p. 245.
Michael Kinnamon and Brian E. Cope, Editors (Geneva: World Council
of Churches Publications, 1997), Violence, Nonviolence and the Struggle 19. Ibid., p. 321.
for Social Justice, WCC Central Committee, 1973, pp. 216-218.
20. For further information, see the Councils website at www.masscoun-
8. Kinnamon and Cope, Violence, Nonviolence, p. 217. cilofchurches.org. Under search, type in points for peacemaking.
9. Ibid., Report of Section I, Church and Community, Oxford Conference 21. Reinhold Niebhur, Moral Man and Immoral Society (New York:
on Church, Community and State, 1937, p. 270. Charles Scribners Sons, 1932, 1960), p. 16.
10. Ibid., p. 268. 22. Ibid., p. 22.

JuLY/AuGust 2011 8/104 ecumenIcAL trends