“In Christ, God was reconciling the world to himself …”
—2 Corinthians 5:19

More than 90 years ago, on November 11, 1918, an armistice was signed that brought the brutal destruction of the First World War to an end. After four years of merciless violence that cost more than six million lives—including 60,000 Canadians—an exhausted world gasped for peace. Europe's landscape was marred by craters and graveyards, bombed-out cities and ravaged countrysides. Also left in shambles was the Enlightenment idea of progress—the notion that technology, science and social organization would inevitably improve the human condition.

A couple of years ago, I read The Guns of August, a book about the outbreak of the First World War. Author Barbara Tuchman traces the inexorable march of events in the months leading up to August 1914 when the Great War broke out. Europe was divided. Petty grievances between heads of state and long-entrenched territorial jealousies set nation against nation. By the summer of 1914, there was a general consensus that war in Europe was inevitable. No one anticipated the four years of destruction that would follow; everyone believed that the war would be over within months. But once violence had taken root, it was nearly impossible to stop.

Legacy of Violence
The two World Wars, the Korean War, the present-day war in Afghanistan—not to mention countless other conflicts—all point to a basic reality of life: we live with a legacy of deep alienation, of grievances held and of scores to be settled. This is played out not only in international conflicts, but in individual lives, families and communities. It pits family member against family member, political party against political party, the wealthy against the poor, province against province. This legacy of alienation is a fact with which we all must live.

Scripture often reflects upon alienation and its consequences. The first story in the Bible that illustrates the way alienation leads to violence comes just four chapters into the Book of Genesis. Cain's jealousy of his brother Abel's acceptance by God led to murder and Cain's exile from the land.

This legacy of violence and enmity was passed down to successive generations. Sarah and Hagar were two women caught in a patriarchal society that demanded a woman produce a son for her husband. As they struggled to secure a blessing for their respective sons, they abused one another psychologically and emotionally (see Genesis 16-21).

The rivalry between Jacob and his twin brother, Esau, was so intense that they tussled with each other in their mother's womb. Eventually, Jacob secured Esau's birthright by tricking his father. Esau's hatred of Jacob was so great that his only comfort was plotting Jacob's death (see Genesis 27).

The next generation was no better. Joseph was despised by his brothers because he was his father's favourite son. Rather than killing their young sibling, the brothers sold him into servitude in Egypt (see Genesis 37).

Deep Alienation
The Bible confirms that life is filled with conflict. Alienation runs deeper than just the inevitable misunderstandings that are part of our life together. Often, if we search our lives deeply, we find that we are alienated from ourselves. We are disappointed and disaffected; we sense that something is not quite right. Not only that, but Christianity confirms that we are profoundly and unavoidably separated from God. This estrangement from God is the source of our self-alienation and our alienation from each other.

This is rooted in the narrative of the Garden of Eden, when the first man and woman exerted their independence from God and ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (see Genesis 3). Soon after, alienation overtook the intimacy of the world God had created. Adam and Eve withdrew from God, and hid in the bushes. They were alienated from each other, concealing their nakedness behind fig leaves. And they were also alienated from the earth; as punishment for their sin, the soil would only yield its food reluctantly and with hard human labour.

This overwhelming alienation might lead us to despair, but the gospel of Jesus Christ asserts that alienation is not the end. If we read the Bible fully, we find another stream of thought. In the story of Jacob and Esau, after a long period of separation, the two brothers are able to embrace (see Genesis 33). Though Joseph's brothers feared that he would take his revenge after rising to a position of power in Egypt, Joseph chose instead to reconcile with them (see Genesis 50).

The Heart of God
The peace that is so desperately needed in our world finds its root first in the heart of God. He extends to us the offer of reconciliation. While we were God's “enemies,” profoundly rebellious and separated from God, Christ died for us. This redeeming, divine love paves the way for our reconciliation. As the Apostle Paul expresseed it in 2 Corinthians 5:19, “… in Christ, God was reconciling the world to himself.” Though history demonstrates that this reconciliation is not yet complete, as Christians we proclaim that it has begun. Paul suggested we are to be ambassadors of reconciliation.

Of course, reconciliation is costly. Just ask those who have negotiated peace in Northern Ireland, South Africa or the Middle East. Consider the difficult legacy of Canada's Aboriginal peoples and the residential schools. Just as our reconciliation with God cost the life of his Son, our reconciliation with one another may cost us dearly. We may have to set aside old grievances, tired prejudices and wrongs inflicted upon us.

The prophets Isaiah and Micah had a vision of a world in which swords are beaten into ploughshares and people no longer go to war (see Isaiah 2 and Micah 4). It may be a distant hope, but it drives us forward as Christians. Alienation and strife do not determine the future. In Christ, God has introduced a new reality into our world. His divine love brings reconciliation. In his strength, we can be ambassadors of reconciliation in a strife-torn world.

Dr. Donald Burke is president and professor of biblical studies at The Salvation Army's Booth University College in Winnipeg. His grandfather, Ernest Ray, spent much of the First World War fighting in the trenches in France. It was in France that Ernest Ray first encountered The Salvation Army and, upon his return to Canada, he became a Salvation Army soldier.

Comment

On Monday, January 17, 2011, calvin hepditch said:

As a final contribution to this discussion, many of my comments will take the form of questions. I would first like to confirm that I am not a pacifist, but believe that - at the appropriate time - a nation (or person)has to take the action necessary to protect the interests of its people and/or territory, even if that involves military force. Again I will focus on the accuracy or inerrancy of the Bible, as I have little interest in trying to prove, or disprove, the obvious - that God is faithful to His attribute as a peace loving and fostering deity. I do find it troubling however that Juan again comments that 'perhap the Scriptures are not accurate'. I hope this does not categorize me as a 'Christian hardhead', but if we cannot accept the Bible as the inspired, inerrant Word of God, where do we turn for the foundational truths and doctrines of our Christian faith? If one statement or section of the Bible is open to question as to its accuracy, doesn't it follow that all of the Bible may not necessarily be accurate, and we are then free to pick and choose which parts are to be believed? And if unbelievers see that Christians have questionable confidence in the Word of God, doesn't that discourage them from accepting the gospel, or introduce further confusion to the doubts and skepticism they may already have? Sure we all have unanswered questions, but aren't we told that we 'see through a glass darkly' - i.e. there are mysteries of life that we will not understand on this side of eternity? Isn't faith itself defined as 'the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things NOT seen?' I realize that we have a more educated and informed society which demands answers - even to questions about matters that are beyond human comprehension. But isn't our role and responsibility to introduce the skeptics to the omniscient God, and not rationalize to the point of questioning the accuracy of the Holy Scriptures? Do we have a complete understanding or knowledge of creation - e.g. God 'speaking' the world into existence? Or His forming man from the dust of the ground? We, as Christians have no right to assume or even suggest to unbelievers that our God is unjust, or anything but magnanimous and beyond reproach in all of His decisions and actions. And unbelievers certainly have no discernment into spiritual matters such as the true nature and attributes of our all-wise Creator God. I believe there are times when our answers to unbelievers' questions must be 'I can't explain it' or 'it's beyond the boundaries of human comprehension'. Under no circumstances should our answers be an indictment of God or a suggestion that the Scriptures may not be accurate. After all 'faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God'. If we only have a flawed and unreliable Word of God to present to unbelievers, can we really expect them to embrace it as the basis for saving faith? Or is even the necessity of salvation itself a requirement which is now subject to question and will soon be 'passe' as well? It seems we are well into the age foreseen by William Booth when he envisioned the day we would have 'religion without the Holy Ghost, Christianity without Christ, forgiveness without repentance, SALVATION WITHOUT REGENERATION, politics without God, and heaven without hell'.

On Wednesday, January 12, 2011, Juan said:

John,

Thanks for your comments. However, the issue that Calvin has taken with my post has more to do with biblical interpretation than what our theories of war might be. I am guessing, by what you said, that my opinion of war probably aligns closely with yours. I am not a pacifist and it is not pacifism that caused me to originally respond to this article. My guess is Calvin is not a pacifist either. If he is, it certainly seems irreconcilable with his views articulated thus far. Pacifism would leave no room for violence under any circumstances, and that is certainly not what Calvin believes.

What caused me to write was simply a genuine desire for someone to tackle the OT genocide questions without ignoring the obvious problems it presents for our faith and what we believe about the character of God. I still hope that someone puts forth an honest effort to explain this or give some possible alternatives without being easily offended by questions of faith. Maybe Dr. Burke will write a follow-up article or some other knowledgeable Salvationist-scholar.

Much grace!

On Tuesday, January 11, 2011, John Stephenson said:

It is interesting to read the comments here from Juan and
Calvin. I think we need to be aware of the fact that there are a
number of different views on War that fit within the Christian
concept. Don Burke in his article articulates his view quite well.
AT our Corps in December Don gave the message twice on the coming
of the Messiah and I for one enjoyed his comments on those
occasions. He is ,if I would dare to say it, and orthodox believer
in that his views fit within the bounds of Christian Faith. However
I am one who does not always agree with them and would suggest that
we each need to look at the views that Christian hold on War and
study the concepts contained in each view so that we can choose our
own view. I have many Mennonite friends who hold to a strict
pacifistict view who disagree with my view which is one that holds
to a Just War view (basically). I would suggest a good starting
point would be a book called "War:Four Christian Views" published
by InterVarsity Press.

On Monday, January 10, 2011, Juan said:

Calvin, I think that, rather than get "bent out of shape"
by my slanderous and heretical comments, the readership would be
much better served if you would take some time to consider and
formulate a logical response to the actual questions I presented.
These questions are ones I run into all of the time from
unbelievers and they deserve a well thought-out response from the
church. Saying, "The Bible says it, I believe it, and don't dare
question it" doesn't wash in today's culture. Also, I am also
pretty sure that God is big enough to handle our questions. But you
said it best - "In the majority of these wars, if not all, God
clearly and unequivocally directed these actions. Either the truth
of the Scriptures or the intent of God’s direction is here being
called into question." Believers and unbelievers alike need to know
that there are other Christian ideas out there about tough
questions like this other than the ones we have heard for so long.
Perhaps the Scriptures are not accurate in their attributing these
wars to God's will. Maybe those verses are simply redactionary work
done by men centuries later. Men who believe, just like those in
the Middle East, that God's will was that they fight for land. Who
knows? We cannot go back in time to prove it. But put those verses
up against the other portraits that are painted of God in the Bible
and something is seriously out of whack. There are many Christians
out there who believe that to be the case. They are not all
fundamentalist, inerrantist readers of the Bible. Their voice
should be heard and be part of the dicussion about hard questions
such as this. Slamming the door on genuine questions will not help
us in our outreach and only reinforces the stereotype of Christians
as unthinking hardheads who will not listen to reason. We've got to
do better than this as a movement. PS - I do not believe my
commenst were edited for inappropriateness, but for length. There
were other sentences that were edited out as well. Besides, the web
edition of the Salvationist is just as much of a media platform for
TSA as the old-fashioned magazine. I don't think the Army would put
anything inappropriate in either of its publications. This is a red
herring argument, Calvin. Peace Juan

On Wednesday, January 5, 2011, calvin hepditch said:

I confess that I find Juan's comments on Dr. Burke's article both appalling and disturbing. In particular, I believe the allusion to our God being a 'bloodthirsty deity' who condones and promotes genocide to be slanderous at best and heretical at its worst. In addition, he appears to doubt the veracity of the Bible when referring to the conflicts of the Old Testament as being 'seemingly at the behest of God himself'. In the majority of these wars, if not all, God clearly and unequivocally directed these actions. Either the truth of the Scriptures or the intent of God's direction is here being called into question. Further, to compare the conflicts of modern warfare, which often are the product of greed, political ambition gone amok, or the designs of power-crazed dictators such as Hitler, with wars directed by a loving, compassionate, omniscient God is, or should be irreconcilable to any spiritually discerning or knowledgable Christian. While we would all like to understand the purposes and motives of God in everything He does, shouldn't we, in deference to God's sovereignty, accept that 'His ways are higher than our ways (Isaiah 55:8,9) and 'His ways past finding out' (Romans 11:33). We should be careful to avoid even the appearance of reducing God's limitless wisdom, power and authority to the level of man's finite understanding.

P.S. I commend the editor for deletion of comments which were obviously inappropriate for publication in the Salvationist.

On Thursday, November 18, 2010, Juan said:

I like the message of this article, but it fails to address to axiomatic “elephant in the room” when discussing war and the Old Testament. The author’s first three paragraphs are about war and the title indicates that this article addresses the theme of war. However, when using the Old Testament to demonstrate the problems of hostility and violence, the author uses only interpersonal conflicts between individuals (i.e. Cain-Abel, Sarah-Hagar, & Jacob-Esau). While I understand the similarities between interpersonal conflict and war, they are not entirely the same and the undercurrents can be very different.

However, what is most troubling and obvious is that the Old Testament is chock full of actual wars – nation against nation and people group versus people group. Why not use those as examples? The problem is that many of these wars were started by God’s chosen people, seemingly at the behest of God himself. Israel is told on numerous occasions to go and annex someone else’s land and eradicate those who inhabited it, sparing no one - not even children. Dutiful motivation aside, to the reader of the Old Testament this doesn’t seem all that dissimilar from the wars we see today – wars that are based on religion and claims on lands.

It is easy to skip right to the New Testament, as Dr. Burke does, and talk about God as one who longs for reconciliation. But the elephant in the room here is the bloodthirsty deity depicted in the Old Testament who appears to be anything but peacemaking. While this is perhaps too difficult of an issue to tackle fully in this short article, some mention of it and perhaps a follow-up article might help. This issue is constantly neglected or tip-toed around by teachers and preachers. In fact, it is absolutely astounding at the number of preachers and teachers who just casually mention the genocides caused by Israel as if it was no big deal. For an article on war and reconciliation that used the Old Testament as a reference point, this one took the easy road and missed the obvious by a long shot.

Leave a Comment