At stake is whether I trust in God or the bomb. In nuclear war there are no winners. I therefore cannot agree that perfecting the bomb and developing the ability to use it first is a basis for my security and well being. It is certainly not an appropriate basis for my faith. … The fashioning of nuclear weapons and threatening to use them is a sin — a sin against God, against God’s likenesses (all humans), and against God’s creation. … Our security as a people of faith lies not in demonic weapons which threaten all life on earth. Our security is in a loving, caring God.

These prophetic words were delivered in a brave and remarkable sermon given by Charles D. Neff to the 1982 Community of Christ World Conference. Neff knew what he was talking about. He was in Hiroshima as a US Naval Officer just a few weeks after the city’s destruction by an atomic bomb. “What I saw there,” he told the conference attendees, “is indelibly etched into my  mind, my heart, my soul. The stark reality of death and despair everywhere in Hiroshima in 1945 was indescribable.”

Among the many contentious pieces of legislation that the Community of Christ faces at its upcoming 2010 World Conference is G-11, “Abolition of Nuclear Weapons” from the Central USA Mission Center. I believe this will be a key test of whether the church is moving toward becoming a peace church, something I have expressed doubts about on this blog.

The proposed legislation resolves “That Community of Christ calls for abolition of all nuclear weapons throughout Earth and space” and outlines a variety of ways the church can be involved in campaigning against nuclear weapons, particularly in the run-up to the upcoming Nuclear Non-Proliferation Conference in New York next month.

Whether you agree with banning nuclear weapons or not, one has to admit that a church that can’t take a stance against nuclear weapons can hardly call itself a peace church. Nuclear weapons fly in the face of Just War Doctrine, as they are the most indiscriminate and disproportionate weapon imaginable. There is no way they could possibly meet the Just War tradition’s requirement that military’s maintain ‘just conduct‘ in war. A church that cannot commit itself to a basic stance of Just War, nevermind pacifism and nonviolence, in my view, has no business pretending to be a peace church. Either drop the label of peace church or face the hard choices that implies — including giving up an attachment to nuclear weapons.

Throwing its lot in with the campaign to abolish nuclear weapons would speak loud and clear that the church truly has faith in the ‘peace of Jesus Christ’ rather than the bomb.

I want to respond to Matthew’s article.

Perhaps we should own up to being father and son straightaway. In recent years our relationship has become more like equal friends and that has been a real joy for me. I even look up to him — he is 6ft 5in and I am only 6ft 2 1/2 in. He writes better than I do and intellectually he is ahead of me. I like to think though that the thousands of conversations we have had over the years have helped shape not only his intellectual skills of analysis but his interest and deep convictions about peace and justice… and his outspokenness. Emily, his beloved wife, is also having a good influence on him. We both look up to her (5ft 5in) and she may, in her Mennonite convictions and personal courage, be even more committed to peace than either of us.

Matthew was a double major at Graceland, his mother’s alma mater, and has completed his MSc in Development Studies and his PhD in Government at the London School of Economics, part of the University of London — my alma mater. He is not just a thorough researcher but a courageous one. He has researched his PhD case studies on the ground in Bosnia, Afghanistan and the Sudan and has worked in Iraq and in several countries in Africa and Central America and the Philippines. So we should welcome his voice along with other young adults in the church who are also on similar committed and courageous journeys.

I really like Matthew’s passion, commitment and clarity. When I finished reading what he had written I was moved and felt connected again with my passion, at my best, to make the world a better place.

However, I am what Matthew would consider to be currently “one of the top leaders” of the church as a member of the Council of Twelve Apostles. Furthermore as coordinator for peace and justice ministries for 9 years from 1998 to 2007 at the international headquarters of the church, in ‘sleepy mid-western town of Independence’, I am co-responsible with others for where we now are as a church. I am thus one of those Matthew is being critical about. I want to thus give my perspective too.

So to Matthew’s article.

1. This is where I agree with Matthew:

a) I really like the suggestions in the section headed: “What Would We See If the Community of Christ Was Serious about Peace?” We should aim to do these kinds of things.

b) I agree that we should choose “The alternative … [option], to take a leap of faith and truly commit to following the call the ‘share Christ’s peace’, engaging in efforts to bring about non-violent resolutions to the world’s conflicts.”

c) I agree that we should follow the radical Jesus. In Matthew’s words: “One cannot have it both ways — a serious commitment to peace comes with great risk. Jesus did not consult risk assessment specialists or his synagogue’s balance sheet before riding into Jerusalem, driving out the money-changers and facing the cross. The church must risk the possibility of ‘losing its life’ — both figuratively, institutionally and literally — if it wants to claim it can save the world.”

d) Agreed. It is difficult to become a peace church. We are frail humans, sinful, and hesitant to apply all of Jesus to all of our lives. We still are involved in empire, especially in the USA and other affluent nations, that crucifies the poor and the non-white.

2. This is where we differ at this point:

a) Matthew asserts that Community of Christ is not a peace church. I want to say that Community of Christ is on a very difficult journey to become a peace church. Commitment to the cause of Zion has been from the beginning of our movement but the pursuit of peace has only been embraced seriously and intentionally in the last 10-25 years. The turning point was the commitment in 1984 to the ordination of women and to build the Temple dedicated to the pursuit of peace, reconciliation and healing of the spirit. To say at this point that we do not measure up to the Quakers and Mennonites, who began 357 and 484 years ago respectively, is like saying a young seedling apple tree does not measure up against the mature fruit tree. Give the delicate plant of peace mission time to grow! This will take at least one generation. Whether we make the transition to an authentic peace church will depend on Matthew’s generation. My generation, born after World War II and shaped by Vietnam and the Cold War, will get through much of the wilderness but we are unlikely to see the promised land. Matthew’s generation can do it.

b) I disagree with the thesis that Community of Christ leaders can only manage the inevitable decline of the church. He compares the plight of church leaders to like that of British leaders who can only manage but not reverse the nation’s inevitable decline since World War II from superpower to an ordinary middle power European nation. The church is not like a nation. The church at its best is proclaiming and living the kingdom of God on earth as it is in heaven. The church, frail, sinful, is nevertheless an instrument in the hands of God to do good in the world because God so loves the world. The Holy Spirit will always inspire all those who hear the call of Jesus to love their neighbour and their enemy and who proclaim in word and deed good news to the poor. The disciples failed utterly at the crucifixion of Jesus but found grace, new conviction and new power on the mornings of Easter and Pentecost. We are no different than the first disciples in our weakness. It is Jesus who makes the difference now and then.

The new emphasis by church leaders on discipleship, spirituality, and identity as followers of Jesus, is a road that will bring renewal and a resurgence of hope and new purpose. D&C 163 is the most significant and radical call to change the world since the call to embrace the cause of Zion at beginning of our movement. The “We share …” document, on the church web page is very helpful to read as another part of clarifying our identity, mission and message.

The church is not managing decline, it is managing a difficult transformation and renewal, that is part of laying the solid foundations for being an authentic peace church. We go through all this change in faith. The church is the bride of Christ. Jesus loves her and will yet see her flourish for the redemptive purposes of God. In the last 10 years 11,000 people have been baptized in Haiti and Africa. The centre of gravity of our movement, like Christianity as a whole, is moving from the minority world of Europe and the USA, Canada and Australia to the majority world of Africa, Latin America and Asia. The church may be struggling in some parts of the world but it is flourishing in other parts.

c) Matthew asserts that most Community of Christ members don’t want to be a peace church. It is true, some don’t want to go on this journey, just as some grumbled all the way through the wilderness from Egypt and died before they got to the Promised land. However, I meet lots of people, young and old, both in rich and poor countries, who are enthusiastic about this journey to become a peace church. Jesus, the Prince of Peace, calls us on this journey. We have agency to choose the path we take.

However, if we really do become a peace church then what a witness that will be given our violent history, our struggles and lack of faith and conviction. If we can take this journey of repentance, individually and as a people with the help of God’s grace, then other faiths with violent histories will be able to see new options too.

d) Matthew is impatient with the very tentative, hesitant steps that he sees the church taking to tackle the immense issues of our time: AIDS, new wars, massive poverty, terrorism etc. Sometimes I am frustrated also. He cannot see any employees in the thick of courageous and skilled peace making. I would rather say that the work that is going on is largely hidden. We are a lay movement working at the grassroots. We are often ministers in our work more than we are in the congregation. What we do is mostly hidden from people, even in the same congregation, as church members seek faithfully to do good in the businesses they run and in the professions and jobs they do. We work at the grass roots as volunteers, as leaven, yeast, salt — hidden but catalyzing change. Most peace work is not spectacular but the honest commitment of years of faithful service.

Also we are usually not privileged to see what church employees are doing in very difficult circumstances in Africa, Latin America and in Asia. These are not easy places to work. Then there is the work of Outreach International and World Accord. Outreach’s PHDP methodology is about changing villages and neighborhoods through community organizing to change nonviolently the culture of silence and the systems that keep the poor trapped in unjust systems. Consider also all the church members who have received the Community of Christ Human Rights Award from Ed Guy to Rupa Kumar and John Menzies. It is an inspiring list and all have been volunteers or in other occupations. We have heroes.

To bring people right up-to-date. In September 21-22, 2009 a peace summit is being held at the Temple complex. President Veazey is inviting significant peacemakers in our movement, together with church leaders and those who lead Outreach, World Accord, Graceland University, the Seminary, etc. The agenda is how we can improve our working together to engage more seriously in the call of Jesus to pursue peace and justice making. We will have consultants from both the Quaker and Mennonite traditions to help us.

Conclusion

There is hope in the resurrected Christ. As Martin Luther King said, the universe bends towards justice. God’s grace is sufficient for us to take the difficult road to pursue peace. It is a journey God calls each of us to with great passion and urgency. The church’s best days are not in the past but still to come.

I am grateful for the journey you have chosen and committed yourself to, Matthew. We are on the same journey and much is expected of both of us.

—Andrew Bolton, Council of Twelve, Asia Field

As far as I can tell, the sum total of our contribution to peace on earth is an annual Peace Colloquy, a Peace Prize, a Peace and Justice website, the Children’s Peace Pavilion, a Peace Committee and a few million dollars contributed to Outreach International, World Accord, the World Hunger Fund and the Save Darfur Coalition.

This might seem like a lot to some, but it is actually no more than any other mainline denomination. It certainly does not match up to the work of the historic peace churches like the Mennonites, Brethren and Quakers. The word ‘peace’ in our logo does not make us a peace church.

How many major international peace negotiations have we supported or facilitated as an institution? Some may say this is setting the bar too high, but the Quakers (a similar sized denomination) were instrumental in providing a back channel in Northern Ireland. The Community of Sant Egido (a Catholic group) was one of the main players in ending the conflict in Mozambique.

How many church employees are working on the ground to end the world’s most deadly armed conflicts? Sure, there are a few members working with NGOs, the diplomatic services or the military, but none of these are working on behalf of the church.

Where is our fearless advocacy on behalf of the poor and oppressed of the world? We’ve given a little money to Bread for the World and have a couple interns working for the Friends Committee on National Legislation. But we have no established or effective way of mobilizing people for advocacy, unlike the Quakers, Mennonites, Presbyterians or Catholics.

Policy Is What Policy Does

We must pause here and dig a little deeper. In my first year of graduate school, a professor of mine, named David Keen, warned the class to be careful about prematurely judging a policy as a failure. He instructed us to ask what functions and unstated objectives might be disguised by a policy’s rhetoric. A policy might say it is intended to reduce poverty but instead just lines the pockets of corrupt bureaucrats. According to its stated objectives, the policy would seem a failure, but for the bureaucrats who got rich, it was a resounding success. In less academic language, policy isn’t just what is said, but what is done – ‘by their fruits you shall know them.’

Let us look, for example, at the Temple in Independence. It was “dedicated to the pursuit of peace.” However, it is not used to host peace negotiations. It is not a busy command center for managing peace activists, citizen diplomats or human rights observers. There are no ‘peace scholars-in-residence.’ There is no think-tank based there producing reports providing a faith-based perspective on conflict. Rather, much of the space, most of the time, is used for offices and conference rooms. To draw on Professor Keen’s instruction, I would have to say the Temple is “dedicated to the pursuit of church management and administration.”

Therefore, if I am to succumb to the temptation of cynicism, the current policy of the church is not to become a peace church, but rather:

1. To appease peace activists by trumpeting the discourse of peace and doing the bare minimum to keep them in the church,
2. To avoid doing anything that could appear too political,
3. To avoid taking any major risks, in terms of people, money or reputation, and thus
4. To have very little engagement with any major conflicts in the world.

If we take this as descriptive of the policy of the church as an institution, it appears to have largely succeeded in its mission.

What Would We See If the Community of Christ Was Serious about Peace?

If the church was really serious about peace, I would expect to see at least some of the following ‘fruits’:

1. A commitment to non-violence and non-participation in the military or armed factions.
2. Widespread participation in peace groups at the local congregational level.
3. Peace and Justice Offices at the United Nations and in Washington DC to keep informed about national and international peace issues, educate members and influence policy.
4. A substantial engagement with national peacebuilding efforts in conflicted countries where the church has a significant presence, such as Haiti, Sri Lanka, the Philippines and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
5. Posting of WorldService Corps volunteers to conflict and post-conflict zones, where they would engage in peacebuilding activities, accompany vulnerable people, be human rights observers and support local peace activists. This could be done in partnership with other organizations like Mennonite Central Committee, the American Friends Service Committee, Christian Peacemaker Teams and Peace Brigades International.
6. A public offer to the UN and US State Department to use the Temple and Auditorium complex for hosting peace negotiations between warring factions.
7. The creation of a peace studies major at Graceland University (currently they only have a minor) and the provision of peace studies scholarships.
8. A program sponsoring prominent ‘Peace Scholars-in-Residence’ at the Temple who hold public seminars, write articles and speak to church leaders about ways to build peace in their jurisdictions.
9. Dedicated efforts to get involved with the ecumenical and inter-faith movement, at the local, national and international levels.
10. Particular attention to peacebuilding in the ‘Holy Land’ of the Middle East — an important calling for all members of the three Abrahamic religions.

What Prevents the Community of Christ from Becoming a Peace Church?

What prevents us from going down the path that our peace rhetoric suggests? I think there are three key underlying reasons:

Firstly, I am not convinced that the majority of the Community of Christ membership is particularly interested in becoming a peace church. There seems to be a great deal of inertia and resistance to moving in this direction. I am actually inclined to agree with the conservative voices in the church that the peace agenda of the Community of Christ is rooted more in the political and ideological convictions of the major leaders, rather than the tradition and beliefs of most members. Naturally, I would like to be proven wrong about this, but am not very hopeful.

Secondly, the institution seems to have a debilitating fear of getting involved in anything that appears too political. An example of this is how much focus is placed on children’s peacemaking (such as the Peace Pavilion and the Children’s Peacemakers Clubs). This is obviously not a bad thing in itself. But I fear we focus on this because we perceive children’s peacemaking as an apolitical thing that no one can really disagree with. Too much emphasis on children’s peacemaking infantilizes and depoliticizes peace, distracting attention from the fact that it is adults that are causing most major conflicts. If we are serious about peacemaking, we cannot shy away from the fact that peace is inherently political, because conflict is political (for more on this, click here to read another recent article of mine).

Finally, there is an entrenched institutional fear of taking major risks, whether financial or human. The church seems especially myopic about money. We are utterly paralyzed by our fear of losing tithing-payers. We are tied down by commitments to maintain two enormous buildings in Independence and are losing sight of our calling to be voices crying out in the wilderness. If the top church leaders are really concerned about peace why aren’t they travelling to Iraq, Afghanistan, Colombia, Sudan and Israel/Palestine and seeing what we can do to help? In the early 1960s when the church was expanding rapidly outside the US, President W. Wallace Smith embarked on a world tour, to learn more about overseas missions and highlight their importance. Why can’t our current leaders do something similar, but with visiting countries of conflict?

Final Thoughts

At present, the Community of Christ is not a peace church. It is a church that likes to talk about peace, dedicate things to peace, even ‘proclaim peace’, but do very little to bring it about. I believe the Community of Christ is at a crossroads and faces two options. The first, probably most comfortable one, is just to continue as we are, in a slow process of ‘managed decline’, never really committing to anything controversial and subsequently remaining rather dull and boring. We won’t attract many new people, but conversely there will be no risk of a mass exodus either. (To read more about my thoughts on the church’s ‘managed decline’, click here) If we decide to go down this path, it might be worth dropping the claim to be dedicated to the pursuit of peace — it would be the honest thing to do.

The alternative is to take a leap of faith and truly commit to following the call the ‘share Christ’s peace’, engaging in efforts to bring about non-violent resolutions to the world’s conflicts. Yes, there is a chance that we would look bad if a peace agreement negotiated in the Temple collapsed or was considered unjust. Yes, there is a chance that a WorldService Corps volunteer assigned to Israel/Palestine could get injured or killed. Yes, there is a chance that by funding peacebulding in Pakistan, money could end up in the hands of militants. Yes, these possibilities are scary. But they are the risks that must be taken if we want to be serious about making a significant difference in the world. 

One cannot have it both ways — a serious commitment to peace comes with great risk. Jesus did not consult risk assessment specialists or his synagogue’s balance sheet before riding into Jerusalem, driving out the money-changers and facing the cross. The church must risk the possibility of ‘losing its life’ — both figuratively, institutionally and literally — if it wants to claim it can save the world.

The church must realize that one cannot create world peace from a small, sleepy town in the Midwest. To have any real impact, the church must have a noticeable and active presence in the very places where major conflict occurs — Africa, the Middle East, the Caucasus, the Balkans.

—Matthew Bolton