For all the persons reading this blog from 1/9, this post is one discussing issues in my faith group so if you ignore it, I'll understand.
Over the
Martin Luther King Jr. weekend I attended a peace conference as one of five military chaplains invited by
Presbyterians Caring for Chaplains and Military Personnel (PCCMP, my endorsing
agency) into the discussion. It was an excellent opportunity for me to engage
with Presbyterians who, like me, are committed to a world with no more war.
While I believe in a different path to that same goal than the majority of the
participants, I have no problem working myself out of a job. This just made it
more disappointing that a discernment conference was anything but a time to
discern our denomination’s stance on war and violence.
A severe weakness in this process
stems from the fact that there was limited time for discussion among the
participants outside of meal times. The conference focused on lectures followed by 10-15 minutes of Q&A
at the end of each session. Additionally, the presenters for each session were
afforded little if any time to dialogue on their respective stances prior to
the Q&A portion of each session. This left the impression that those of us
in attendance were there to learn from the experts on how they advocate for
peace and that we should engage in similar ways. Unfortunately, those methods
are not easily applied across the myriad of contexts the participants immerse
themselves in each and every day. For example, I am the sole minister to a
congregation of over 1000 infantry Marines, 90% of which are under the age of
35, 60% under the age of 25. Religiously, my Marines are approximately 50%
Protestant, 20% Catholic, 25% have no religious preference and the remaining 5%
come from backgrounds including atheist, agnostic, Muslim, Jewish, Baha’i,
Rastafarian and Jedi (yes, they do claim that as a faith group and place it on
their dog tags). From such a broad context, I had many questions, just no real
space to discuss them with the other participants.
A second major weakness in the
conference came in the lineup of presenters. Most were extremely active in the
peace movement as professors of peace studies throughout the country or working
in institutions in which non-violent strategies were the sole manner of
achieving peace in the world. Their insights were valuable and allowed me to
discuss academic insights with my Commanding Officer upon my return to work.
However, the conference had an insular feel that non-violence was the only way
to achieve peace as only two speakers spoke to the nuance and complexity of the
goal of a peaceful world through a Just War background. Unfortunately, this
echoed the tone of the Peace Discernment Interim Report which gives this
minister the impression that GA 221 will be presented with a recommendation for
the PC(USA) to declare itself a “peace church” as discussed by Professor Long
in the February 4th edition of the Outlook. A balanced lineup of
speakers would have greatly enhanced the discussion and prevented an insular
feeling with speakers all essentially saying the same things.
Discussing our denominational stance
on peace and violence is an important discussion. We do ourselves no favors if
we aren’t open to hearing all sides of the issue. If those who are writing this
report all hold the same ideas and arrange conferences that uplift their views,
are we really opening ourselves up to the leading of the Holy Spirit? Those who
advocate non-violence have a seat at the table in military circles as members
of the military read the writings of advocates of non-violence and many front
line units are advised by chaplains from mainline denominations. My Commanding
Officer wants to hear what pacifists have to say on war and he expects me to
read and understand that argument as it heavily informs my unit’s reliance on
Care Ethics. Chaplains are out there ministering to the very people who are
directly affected by policies that send young men and women into combat. We
know what it is like to counsel someone within minutes of killing an enemy and
all of the pain that entails. We want peace as much as pacifists, we just see a
different path to that goal. For these reasons, why aren’t those in the
military who have the most to lose through military violence given a place at
the pacifist table?
If the denomination wants to become a “peace church” I am
comfortable with that decision provided that there is an honest discussion
where all viewpoints are provided a chance to be heard and debated. Additionally,
we need to look at the second and third order effects of such a decision. I
work in a vibrant young adult ministry full of men (the combat exclusion is
still in effect in Marine Infantry) who struggle with the same questions. They
are looking for a faith community that will welcome those questions and walk
them through the grey area that is war and peace in a world full of sin and
evil. Perhaps we can do more to advance a peaceful world through providing a
safe place for such balanced and compassionate discussion rather than a
one-sided view of the complexities of peace and violence in a broken world full
of broken people.
