Below is a bibliography of works consulted in writing the posts "Evangelicals and Conflict Transformation." If you want to read more on the topic, this list should be a good start!

Almond, Gabriel A., R. Scott Appleby, and Emmanuel Sivan. Strong Religion: The Rise of Fundamentalisms Around The World. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003.

Appleby, R. Scott. The Ambivalence of the Sacred: Religion, Violence, and Reconciliation. Oxford: Rowman and Littlefield, 2000.

Baker, Doug. Living for a Change Toward a Culture of Peace. Louisville: Presbyterian Peacemaking Program, 2000.

Baum, Gregory and Harold Wells, eds. The Reconciliation of Peoples: Challenge to the Churches. New York: Orbis Books, 1997.

Blewett, Timothy, Adrian Hyde-Price, and Wyn Rees, eds. British Foreign Policy and the Anglican Church: Christian Engagement with the Contemporary World. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2008.

Broadhead, Philip and Damien Keown, eds. Can Faiths Make Peace?: Holy Wars and the Resolution of Religious Conflicts. London: I. B. Tauris, 2007.

Ganiel, Gladys. Evangelicalism and Conflict in Northern Ireland. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008.

Gopin, Marc. Between Eden and Armageddon: The Future of World Religions, Violence, and Peacemaking. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.

Hiebert, David. Religion and Civil Society: Rethinking Public Religion in the Contemporary World. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2003.

Johnston, Douglas and Cynthia Sampson, eds. Religion, the Mission Dimension of Statecraft. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994.

Kenny, Colum. ‘Imprisoned Within Structures’?: The Role of Believing Communities in Building Peace in Ireland (The Believers Enquiry, 1997/98). Glencree, Co. Wicklow: Glencree Centre for Reconciliation, 1998.

Lederach, John Paul. The Little Book of Conflict Transformation. Intercourse, PA: Good Books, 2003.

-----------. The Moral Imagination: The Art and Soul of Building Peace. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.

Pray the Devil Back to Hell. DVD. Dir. Gini Reticker. 2008; Fork Films, 2008.

Thomas, Scott M. The Global Resurgence of Religion and the Transformation of International Relations: The Struggle for the Soul of the Twenty-First Century. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005.

Wells, Ronald A. Friendship Towards Peace: The Journey of Ken Newell and Gerry Reynolds. Blackrock, Co Dublin: Columba Press, 2005.

Wuthnow, Robert. Christianity and Civil Society: The Contemporary Debate. Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1996.

Evangelicals and Conflict Transformation: What It Looks Like

I end my series of blogs on religion and conflict transformation by sketching for you the qualities and characteristics of a Christian peacemaker.

This peacemaker’s work is built on the foundation of a biblical understanding of peace. In the Bible, “peace” in this world is not an absence of conflict, it is not an end to all violence, and it most certainly is not a ring of people holding hands and singing “Kumbaya.” Rather, peace in this world is most basically characterized by an inner calm, a deep awareness that the Lord is in control of everything that happens and that he is working out all things for good. He desires for us to work for an end to conflict, violence, and perhaps one day to sing all together (although hopefully not “Kumbaya”), but it is not possible for that vision to be fulfilled in our fallen world. However, an integral, and life-giving, aspect of working towards that vision is the deep Biblical peace that recognizes that each of our lives is short, limited, and often frustrating, but that God knows all that is happening and is using it in his bigger, magnificent plan for us and for the world. This inner peace sustains us during the unavoidable backward steps in the conflict transformation process.

The Christian peacemaker’s work is also built on the foundation of conflict-as-gift. As John Paul Lederach, a scholar-practitioner in the field of Conflict Transformation and a practicing Mennonite, writes,

“Conflict flows from life…. [R]ather than seeing conflict as a threat, we can understand it as providing opportunities to grow and to increase understanding of ourselves, of others, of our social structures. Conflicts in relationships at all levels are the way life helps us to stop, assess, and take notice. One way to truly know our humanness is to recognize the gift of conflict in our lives…. Conflict also creates life: through conflict we respond, innovate, and change. Conflict can be understood as the motor of change, that which keeps relationships and social structures honest, alive, and dynamically responsive to human needs, aspirations, and growth.”1

Christian peacemakers embrace conflict as a window into the heart of their relationships and their society, as a way to see what is working well and what needs to be changed. They do not run from conflict or seek to minimize it, but welcome it and strive to learn and grow from it.

Christian peacemakers are characterized by a “clear sense of [their] uniqueness [which they] combine...with a willingness to explore and visit other worlds of meaning, without destroying them”.2 In the deep but humble confidence of their own identity, religious peacemakers are able to engage with people on the outside of their identity boundaries. They are able to acknowledge the “underlying spiritual unity,” or the image of God, in all humanity.3 This emphasis on firm religious identification and deep respect for humanity enables them to cultivate transformed relationships with all people, regardless of their political, ethnic, or religious affiliations. They take to heart Richard John Neuhaus’s advice when he says, “It is the will of God that we be tolerant of those who disagree with us about the will of God.”4 They are submersed in Biblical truths and traditions and are known by their acts of selfless love and service. Their entire life is marked by their commitment to cultivating peace, whether in the home, at work, or in international politics.

A Christian peacemaker is characterized by the image of a prophet entering a gilded city. He has just left the wilderness where he fasted, repenting of his own sins and passionately praying for the city he is now entering. His torn clothes hang loosely on his emaciated limbs, and black soot is spread all over his skin. He walks slowly and weakly, yet his voice is a strong, clear clarion call, echoing through the streets and into the countryside: Repent! Be reconciled to God and be reconciled to each other! Be children of God, be peacemakers!

____________________

1. John Paul Lederach, The Little Book of Conflict Transformation (Intercourse, PA: Good Books, 2003), 44-5.

2. Marc Gopin, Between Eden and Armageddon: The Future of World Religions, Violence, and Peacemaking (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 6.

3. R. Scott Appleby, The Ambivalence of the Sacred: Religion, Violence, and Reconciliation (Oxford: Rowman and Littlefield, 2000), 143.

4. As quoted in Douglas Johnston and Cynthia Sampson, eds., Religion, the Mission Dimension of Statecraft (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994), 266.

Evangelicals and Conflict Transformation: Downsides

We have already seen that religion has a significant role to play in conflict transformation; we have a sense of what roles it is capable of playing; and we have an idea of how to theologically approach these concepts. But what about all the complicating bits, all the negative sides of religions working for conflict transformation we don’t like to look at? In this blog I will look at five of those, and begin to propose ways to constructively engage them with them.

People who are passionate about religion will always be dangerous.

R. Scott Appleby’s concept of religious militants give us a helpful framework for confronting this objection to religion’s involvement in conflict transformation.1 Religious militants are passionate about involving their religious beliefs in their everyday lives (so I am a religious militant and quite possibly you are, too). Religious militants can be nonviolent, (and often are), but their passion does make them more susceptible to violent tendencies than people who feel less strongly about their religious beliefs. However, it should not be concluded from this that all passionate religious expression is dangerous.

Those religious militants who are violent are “inherently interactive, reactive, and oppositional;"2 they “turn back” to old hurts and pains instead of “say[ing] anew” spiritual truths that will begin to re-cultivate peace in their communities.3 They work against societal transformation. Nonviolent religious militants who speak into their societies out of a humble heart overflowing with love, sharing visions of hope for a changed future, are only dangerous to the degree that they challenge these violent religious militants and the addiction to war and violence that plagues most societies.

Religion is frequently co-opted by the State and subsequently discredited in society.

When this occurs, the religion loses its ability to speak prophetically into the surrounding society and has difficulty regaining respect and validity. The religion may even exacerbate the conflict. However, there are numerous examples of religious groups and individuals doing the exact opposite despite being complicit in the conflict: the Clonard-Fitzroy Fellowship which I briefly described in an earlier post is a particularly noteworthy example of this.

It’s difficult for religions to separate themselves from the societies in which they are situated.

It’s hard to see objectively the ills of the society in which we live, and, as mentioned in a previous blog, those ills often have a negative impact on our theology. Engaging in a robust, religion-wide debate on the place of peace within the faith can help ameliorate this negative and provincial aspect of religious interpretation, as can developing relationships with people from a different society and, if possible, spending time away from one’s home society.

Religious leaders and passionate lay people are limited in their work for reconciliation by the congregation and community of which they are a part.

It takes the working of the Spirit and wise leadership to guide people through the scary waters of reaching across established divides, and regardless many people will not be ready for it. People seeking societal transformation must be prepared for this. Engagement with conflict transformation requires moral courage and a long-suffering commitment to persevere, despite difficulties, setbacks, and the lonely, unglamorous nature of the work. But never forget that one person can have a substantial impact for good, whether or not she is supported by the broader community.

We humans all have our own ambitions, biases, agendas, and sins which negatively effect any of our efforts at reconciliation.

There’s no way we can get around this. As I pointed out in the previous blog, this demands that we approach speaking prophetically into societal transformation with sincere humility and a loving, selfless spirit.

This is just a taster of the objections to religion’s involvement in conflict resolution that people have spent centuries proposing. They are all valid, certainly; but rather than become discouraged by them, we must continue to engage with them as we out for ourselves religion’s role in conflict transformation.

_____________________

1. For a more thorough description of this concept, see R. Scott Appleby, The Ambivalence of the Sacred: Religion, Violence, and Reconciliation (Oxford: Rowman and Littlefield, 2000), 6-30.

2. Gabriel Almond, R. Scott Appleby, and Emmanuel Sivan, Strong Religion: The Rise of Fundamentalisms Around The World (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003), 218.

3. Douglas Johnston and Cynthia Sampson, eds., Religion, the Mission Dimension of Statecraft (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994), 308.

Evangelicals and Conflict Transformation: Theological Interpretations

“It is not religion that has failed the cause of peace, but religious people.”

First World Conference on Religion and Peace, 19701

All religions have within their traditions aspects that can be utilized to intensify violence and aspects that can be utilized to cultivate peace, even if these more positive aspects have more often than not been remarkably underutilized. I am not saying that every religion is intrinsically both evil and good; I would be a heretical evangelical if I believed that. Rather, I am saying that every religion has been used for evil and can be used for good. In this post I will sketch the outlines of a discussion on what it takes for a religion to utilize its potential for peace. I will concentrate on evangelical Christianity, but most of these principles are transferable to other religious traditions.

Before a religious group or person can be a prophetic voice within their community, they must begin with repentance. Religions and people are all parts of our fallen world, and therefore religious people and their structures all need healing, especially when they have been directly implicated in the violence. We need to recognize that our theology is inevitably influenced by our context and that we have messed it up in many ways, most of which we will never realize.

While we continually go through a process of soul-searching and repentance, we must revisit our holy texts and our religious traditions in order to develop a theological basis out of which we can work to cultivate peace. Ensuring that religious beliefs line up with international moral standards as expressed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other such documents, as some people recommend, is anathema to religious belief in general, and certainly anathema to the prophetic voice. Rather, we must examine our religion to see what it says about peace and transforming relationships and apply international regulations to the results of that process.

How do we go about examining our religion in such a way? Every pastor or lay leader will recommend something different, but I have found the following to be helpful in my own journey and so humbly present it to you.

1. First and foremost, immerse yourself in the character of God. Everything in our theology, everything God does and doesn’t do, wants and doesn’t want, likes and doesn’t like, stems from what he is, from his character. Immerse yourself in this, and you will have startling insights into his teachings.
   
2. Interpret every verse and passage within the entire context of the Bible. More often than not people justify violence in the name of religion by quoting verses grossly out of context.
   
3. Keep in mind that every conclusion should ultimately lead us to loving our neighbor (which includes our enemies) as much as we love ourselves, exemplifying the sacrificial love Christ showed us.

Such an examination should not take place in an empty room. Rather, it needs to be a debate that engages all sectors of the Christian community. Even extremely liberal and extremely conservative sectors need to be engaged, for as they are part of the problem, they need to be included in any search for a solution. This debate should take place in our college and seminary classrooms, in our small groups and at our Men’s Breakfasts. It should be included in our Sunday School literature, in our Christian bookstores, on our radio shows and in our magazines.

A final word of caution, however. At the end of the day, we will always have flaws in our theology, and we will always have members of our community who continue to use Christianity to justify atrocities. This does not mean we should throw up our hands and in despair stop (or never start) engaging our religious beliefs with cultivating peace in situations of violence. Rather, it is a call to humbly approach all we do. Afterall, throughout history, it has been religious people who have been the problem, not their religions.

__________________

1. As quoted in Douglas Johnston and Cynthia Sampson, eds., Religion, the Mission Dimension of Statecraft (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994), 314.

Evangelicals and Conflict Transformation: Possibilities and Limitations

Douglas Johnston, in Religion, the Missing Dimension of Statecraft has developed three broad categories under which religious institutions and people can support the work of conflict transformation. They can direct the change inevitable in societies seeking transformation; they can provide physical and intellectual space for such change; and they can support change that has already happened. As proposed by Gladys Ganiel in her book Evangelicalism and Conflict in Northern Ireland, religious groups can also be divided into three different levels (ecumenical organizations and denominations; congregations and other religious organizations; and networks), with increasing ability to impact conflict transformation within societies. Combined, these two theories provide helpful insights into the limits and possibilities of religion in conflict transformation and peace cultivation.

Ganiel’s first level includes ecumenical organizations and denominations. These organizations are least able to direct change because they are far removed from the feelings and actions of the masses on the ground. However, they can provide the theological space, or the permission, if you will, for their members to seriously engage in conflict transformation and reconciliation. Also, they can powerfully support societal transformation in various ways. They can, for example:

• contribute to change within religious organizations which are themselves complicit in the conflict
• improve support for a peace agreement for contentious issues in a settlement process
• be brilliant networkers between a society’s policy makers and its masses, bringing the concerns of the one to the other and vice versa. This is a key function of conflict transformation and few organizations are as aptly suited to it as religious ones.

The second level is that of congregations and other organizations, including religious non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Groups at this level are more able to speak prophetically into societies because they are more connected to normal people. They can direct change in numerous ways, including developing friendships between congregations on different sides of divided societies. The Clonard-Fitzroy Fellowship, a fellowship between a Catholic parish and a Protestant church in Belfast, was a pioneering example of this type of work. Churches can provide a very tangible space for change when they provide the facilities for off-the-record talks between governments and “terrorist” groups or between still-warring parties. Again Clonard-Fitzroy is a fantastic example of that. Religious NGOs can be models of good forms of religious identity in societies which have discredited organized religion. Finally, both congregations and religious NGOs can garner support for peace settlements, and they can also address the sense of threatened identity that inevitably people will experience while cultivating a more peaceful society.

The third level is made up of religious networks; I will include and individuals as well. This level is most able to speak into societal transformation and can be a very potent force for change. Indeed, often the actions of one person contributes more to reconciliation within a society than the words of whole organizations. John Paul Lederach, a popular scholar-practitioner in the field of conflict transformation, suggests that a critical mass, a large number of people, is not as important in societal transformation as a critical yeast, that is, as enough people who are passionate and well-placed, who find the space to do what needs to be done and to be what society needs them to be in order to cultivate peace. History is ripe with examples of individuals who have directly changed their societies and who have provided space for such change: Martin Luther King Jr, Mahatma Gandhi, the women of Liberia. In addition, individuals’ efforts to change society contribute to a more robust civil society which most often has a positive correlation with the quality of democracy found in that country, thereby (at least in theory) supporting the cultivation of peace within the country.

Religious organizations and people of all shapes and sizes can powerfully impact the transformation of their societies and of the world. All that is necessary is that they utilize the resources of their religion for reconciliation. I will look more closely at this topic in my next blog, so stayed tuned.

Evangelicals and Conflict Transformation: Why This Is Important

Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.

Matthew 5:9

An estimated ⅔ of present wars are about identity issues, and in many of these cases religion itself becomes a reason for conflict. This means that Christians and other religious people around the world are, in mass numbers, inciting fear and anger, abusing the weak and vulnerable within their societies, and murdering their neighbors. It is vital that religious people everywhere stop exacerbating conflict but instead engage in transforming conflict situations by helping to cultivate peace within their societies and around the world. It is time we remember our call to be peacemakers.

Religious people and institutions have a potent role to play in conflict transformation. In societies cultivating peace after conflict with religious overtones, it is imperative that the religious traditions and expressions within the society go through a process of transformation. Religious people are best suited to this type of work. Moreover, religion is uniquely formed with deeply effective qualities for conflict transformation:

• transforming relationships between people is an inherently spiritual undertaking, whether the people involved are religious or not;
• the ability to speak truth into the ills of society and to envision a different future is a natural component of religions;
• the personal qualities encouraged by religions are important qualities to have and to build upon while engaging in this work;
• and the social positions of many religious organizations and people, with their broad networks general trustworthiness, and history of good works in the community position them ideally to work with all levels of society towards transforming animosity into a shared future, into a hope-filled, respect-filled present.

As one scholar writes,

“Religions… [have] been in this business of spiritual and psychological healing for millennia, have helped lay the groundwork for such thinking, and they are prepared to contribute anew in powerful and innovative ways to its political application.”1

This is a rather rosy picture of religion, I admit. The Dutch Reformed Church in Apartheid South Africa, for example, did not speak truth into its society’s ills; rather, it supported those ills with its preaching and its practices. Religious people all too often have little compassion, even less self-discipline, and no tolerance. As for trustworthiness and good works, if religions themselves are complicit in the conflict, to a good portion of the population anyone who represents that religion, and ergo the religion itself, will not be trustworthy and indeed, it will represent evil deeds rather than good works.

These are objections with which you and I and every other religious person interested in cultivating peace needs to grapple. As we continue through this series of blogs on religion and conflict transformation, keep asking these questions; hopefully by the end of the series we will all have a better of understanding of both their complexities and their solutions. But as we start this journey, keep in mind that all valuable things in life are inherently risky, whether you are applying for a job, getting married, or engaging religion in politics and in conflict transformation despite its potential to powerfully act for good or for evil.

Engaging religion in such a way may be risky, but it is vital for our world today.

This is the first blog of five in a series which explores the role of religion and religious people in conflict transformation. In the next post I will discuss potential roles for religion in societies cultivating peace after violent conflict. Then I will look at how we can theologically engage with the topic of conflict transformation, followed by a more in-depth look at the negative aspects of involving religion in such work. Finally I will suggest ways that we as individuals and communities can begin to engage in conflict transformation. I am an (American) evangelical Christian, and so for the sake of familiarity, I focus on and speak mainly to fellow evangelicals. However most of what I is applicable to other religious traditions.

_______________________

1. R. Scott Appleby, The Ambivalence of the Sacred: Religion, Violence, and Reconciliation (Oxford: Rowman and Littlefield, 2000), 20.