Weaving a Seamless Garment out of Peace, Freedom, and Security

Ever since nuclear arms emerged as a major policy issue, some people have prodded the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) to enter the debate. The association responded with Peace, Freedom, and Security Studies (PFSS), a program designed to generate dialogue within NAE ranks.

The organization launched the project about three years ago partly out of concern that the loudest Christian voices on arms-related issues were coming from the political Left. Last fall, the NAE adopted guidelines that will serve as the linchpin of its PFSS program (CT, Nov. 21, 1986, p. 28). The program’s immediate goal is to develop some 500 leaders within NAE who will adopt the study of nuclear-arms issues as an area of specialization. Long-range plans include the development of a speakers bureau, an information clearinghouse, and study kits and other educational materials.

This spring, the NAE is in the midst of ten regional meetings to solicit response to the PFSS document from church leaders and grassroots Christians nationwide. NAE has said it will incorporate the responses into future versions of the guidelines.

Reactions

Lutheran theologian Richard Neuhaus said the PFSS document is of “potentially watershed importance.” He said this importance lies not just with the document’s content but “in the constituency it’s trying to reach.” The NAE umbrella includes some 45,000 churches from 78 denominations. Through its affiliates and subsidiaries, it serves 10 to 15 million people.

Although the program’s goal is to promote discussion, the guidelines reveal that “we have come to some conclusions already,” said Robert Dugan, director of the NAE Office of Public Affairs. Dugan called NAE’S refusal to separate discussions of world peace from considerations of freedom and security “a conclusion of sorts.”

The general premise of other church bodies that have addressed the arms issue is that avoiding nuclear war is the top priority. In contrast, the NAE guidelines “reject the idea that survival is the primary value,” and speak instead of the “twin threats of nuclear destruction and totalitarianism.” The guidelines call for “an accurate assessment of hostile communist states,” primarily the Soviet Union.

Christians in the United States differ on how to accomplish the goals of avoiding both nuclear war and Soviet-style totalitarianism. Some of the invited guests at the first of NAE’S regional meetings, held in suburban Chicago, voiced uneasiness with the posture of the NAE document, although they generally support the PFSS project.

John Burkholder, of the Mennonite Central Committee’s peace office, said the document is too hesitant to criticize American shortcomings. “I’m a believer in the American system when it works like it’s supposed to,” he said, “[but Christians] have allowed too many bad things to happen in the name of America.”

Pacifist theologian Dale Brown expressed the feeling among some in attendance that the document does not sufficiently distinguish between biblical pacifism and the secular peace movement. “A biblical pacifist would never say survival is the highest value,” Brown said.

How It Compares

The NAE document is in part a response to the U.S. Catholic bishops’ 1983 pastoral letter and to similar statements produced by leaders in mainline Protestant denominations, most notably the United Methodist Church and the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).

Generally, the Presbyterian and Methodist documents, neither of which is an official church statement, lean toward a “moral equivalency doctrine,” which regards the United States and the Soviet Union as comparably evil. In contrast, the NAE guidelines assert that “the conclusion that the evil fostered by the democratic West is equivalent to that found in the Communist world [is] flatly contradicted by history and current events.”

Both the United Methodist and Presbyterian documents draw an inseparable link between peace and justice. The NAE guidelines acknowledge a relationship; however, they state that the issue of how the Old Testament vision of shalom (Hebrew for peace) applies to contemporary times is debatable. The document grants priority to “the discovery of processes by which competing views of justice may conduct and resolve their conflict without violence.”

The NAE and mainline Protestant statements differ also on specific policy issues. Both the United Methodist and Presbyterian documents question the morality of the U.S. policy of nuclear deterrence. The Methodist document goes on to oppose space-based weapons systems. The NAE guidelines uphold nuclear deterrence, provided the rationale for it is not hatred. They contain no specific criticism of U.S. policy.

To some extent, the Catholic bishops’ pastoral letter has been a model for the other church documents. The pastoral’s perspective lies between the approaches of the NAE and mainline Protestants. It deems nuclear deterrence morally acceptable, for example, but only as a step toward eventual disarmament.

The bishops’ letter describes a Soviet system characterized by repression and a lack of respect for human rights. At the same time, it states that the United States has “sometimes supported repressive governments in the name of preserving freedom [and] has carried out repugnant covert operations of its own.” But the bishops uphold the West by stating, “NATO is an alliance of democratic countries which have freely chosen their association. The Warsaw Pact is not.”

Conclusions

Brian O’Connell, PFSS project coordinator, reports general approval of the program, even among those whose political and theological perspectives differ at points from those expressed in the guidelines. But those who maintain that the church’s exclusive role is to voice a prophetic “No” to nuclear arms without regard for the consequences find the guidelines wanting.

While the document is not as critical of the United States as some would like, it rejects the belief that America has a “uniquely holy task,” calling such belief “presumption bordering on blasphemy.” It also rejects solutions that call merely for bolstering America’s military strength. Ronald Sider, associate professor of theology at Eastern Baptist Theological Seminary, said he was favorably impressed with the frequency of the document’s appeals for nonviolent solutions to conflict.

In one sense, criticism of the guidelines is premature, since the NAE has called it a “living document,” suggesting it will be revised according to the will of the NAE constituency. However, the organization has not yet laid out a plan to incorporate the response.

By Randy Frame.

What Others Are Saying

Richard Neuhaus, director of the Center for Religion and Society:

The Peace, Freedom, and Security Studies (PFSS) document is a promising initiative with potentially watershed importance. But much depends on what the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) does with it. In some ways, the PFSS program is a test of the relationship between the NAE’S leadership and its constituency.

The document is remarkable for the way it bends over backward to say that people of equal conviction and intelligence can disagree on these issues. The program wrestles with the hard questions about war and peace in a manner that is generally missing from religious engagements in this area.

Anita Deyneka, director of the Institute of Soviet and East European Studies:

This is a profound document with the potential for changing history. It avoids linking the gospel with any political system, but clearly views democracy, as opposed to totalitarianism, as being more congruent with Christianity. I would like to see a more thorough treatment of the theological foundations of the ethical and political positions taken in the document. And further examination of the role of economics—so formative in problems of peace, freedom, and security—would be useful.

Richard Blackburn, director of the Lombard Mennonite Peace Center:

The PFSS program offers an exciting possibility for dialogue. I support it, although I find the guidelines deficient in some areas. They offer no biblical justification for the idea that national security ought to be a primary concern of Christians. And the document does not fairly represent the multidimensional foundation for a pacifist view.

But the guidelines are just the beginning of a dialogue. Some say the NAE has a hidden agenda; I am willing to give it the benefit of the doubt. I affirm the positive in the guidelines, especially the goal of finding nonviolent alternatives to conflict.

Ronald Sider, associate professor of theology at Eastern Baptist Theological Seminary:

I support any effort that promotes discussion among Christians about making peace. I commend the NAE for its courage to enter the political arena and to listen to a wide range of views. The document states important specifics, such as rejecting the idea that the United States has a uniquely holy task.

I find it astounding, however, that justice and poverty are largely ignored. The Scriptures make it clear that peace and justice are inseparably related. The NAE document specifically rejects justice as a major concern. This is a slap in the face to Third World Christians.

James Skillen, director of the Association for Public Justice:

I applaud the NAE’S effort to promote much-needed dialogue among Christians. But I take issue with the document’s attempt to rise above the fray, to endorse perpetual dialogue without moving toward conclusions. Evangelicals need to be pushed to offer something new and meaningful to this important debate.

Have something to add about this? See something we missed? Share your feedback here.