A Critical Reading on the “Initial Statement Towards an Ecumenical Declaration on Just Peace”.

Eighth assembly of the WCC in Harare in 1998 decided to establish a Decade to Overcome Violence. Ninth assembly held in 2006 at Port Alegre decided to conclude the Decade in 2011 with an International Ecumenical Peace Convocation. They decided that an Ecumenical Declaration on Just Peace will be made on that occasion for discussion and action. We are discussing the initial statement of that declaration. The Initial Statement is designed to be something of a "starter".

The Initial Statement towards an Ecumenical Declaration on Just Peace emphasizes that our starting point is God's peace, as manifested in the life and death of Jesus Christ. It is not "our peace". We do not have to invent it. God's peace speaks to all aspects of our life and work. Peace or just peace, therefore, is not just an issue of political ethics among many others. It is the frame which determines our approach to all ethical issues. Therefore, the statement addresses the churches as agents of peace-building and identifies various ways in which this can be done. Since the churches are present at all levels of life, from the personal to the global, peace-building has to do with different aspects and tasks. Justice is a basic one, so is reconciliation.

The statement deals the issue of "peace with creation" also. Basically, a "peace declaration" is meant to enable the churches to reframe their understanding of what "God's peace" means for their witness in today's world. Hence it is a "mission statement". The statement is quite clear about the sad impact that Christian churches had by legitimizing armed conflicts for centuries. They need to repent for that. The statement gives a Biblical basis to the understanding of peace. It also describes the historical events through which God has spoken to the Church to strive for Peace. It portrays Trinity as the paradigm of God’s peace. Misuse of power always brings the violence. This declaration also highlights the scope of the Church’s engagement for peace.

Critical Reading on the Initial Statement.

Statement says that peace and well being do not happen but we need grace of God and human co-operation. It also challenges us to realize the interrelatedness of our entity by saying, “No one can be whole in a broken world”. Some critical observations are given below.

1.It is a traditional way of understanding peace and violence. It has given a detailed Biblical basis to understand the peace concept. But the statement lacks theological explorations made by the theologians and the scholars from sociological, economic, political and cultural backgrounds who read the history different ways in their contexts. Statement elaborately describes about church as an agent of peace building and the prophetic task of the church. It says that “The word of God has come to us through the Scriptures and within the churches” (point9). But where do we place the peace struggles of the other faiths, civil societies and the social movements? To what extent the patriarchal and discriminating church can play the prophetic role? Structural Church has the history of violence, conquests and subjugation. Then how do we justify our struggles for just peace? We need more introspection and self-criticism. Statement talks about the spiritual practices of peace. How we do we differentiate “spiritual” and “secular” practices of peace?

2. It goes beyond the anthropocentric understanding of peace. In points 18 – 26 statement talks about the peace with the earth. In point 6 Statement says that “our salvation cannot be separated from the wellbeing of creation”. It also says that “Peace of God cannot be severed from peace on earth and with the earth”. But again the question remains, earth is our home or we are part of the earth. When we say earth is our home there we could see an inherent domination. The statement describes liturgy as the source of peace but where do we place the creation in an anthropocentric liturgy?

3. Just Peace challenges the Empires. Peace is not the absence of war as the statement also says. But discussion and engagement of just peace will be a threat to the empire builders. Without violence an empire cannot build and emperor cannot exist. Jesus’ birth disturbs the emperor Herod and also the religious empire in Jerusalem. This has to be discussed when we talk about the peace.

4. Just Peace also means Solidarity with the victims and taking sides with the wounded. In the just peace journey we have to move with the victims. Taking neutral decisions and compromise with the violence perpetuating structures dilute the whole issue. The communities which involve in the just peace struggle should have the courage to criticize the dominant violent structures. The statement took a diplomatic silence in the issues of questioning the empires and taking sides with the victims on the way towards just peace.

5. Media, Violence and Just Peace. Media plays an important role in our society in bringing violence or a justice. Some times the media was criticized by many for this reason. In countering the culture of violence media has to play a major role. The nexus between, money, power and media prevents media from this responsibility. Today media plays an important role in creating or destructing the society by influencing the perception of the people. Media should Communicate Peace for building viable communities by taking sides”. This declaration says nothing about the role of the media in inculcating peace in society.

This declaration do not show the courage to criticize the dominant structures which are perpetuating violence explicitly and subtle ways and negating just peace of majority including Dalits, women and marginalized. And I doubt it can energize the people involving in the struggles to establish just peace with a great hope because it bears all the limitations of the structural church. The whole statement revolves around the church and it hesitates to go beyond it and it also reluctant to read history from the subaltern perspective. The untold truths and unheard realities are many.

Just Peace Initial Statement and it’s Relevance in the Kerala Context.

WCC asks the churches to relate this statement with the just peace issues related with their context. Peace is not an abstract idea which will be discussed objectively. It has to be related with the people’s sufferings and struggles. The statement says that, “violence has untold expressions. At the personal level the most gruesome forms are intentional humiliation and hurt, sexual abuse, rape and murder, abandonment and starvation. At the level of societies and nations violence is expressed in acts of war and terrorism ….. refugees, in children being forced into soldering and prostitution, in farmers committing suicide because of unmanageable debts”. All these are not alien in our context too. Let me highlight some issues and church’s engagement on these issues.

1.Land Struggles. In Kerala there are struggles for a piece of land by the dalits, minorities and economically poor people. Peace without justice is a myth. Muthangha ( Wayanad ) and Chengara land struggles are the two examples. But Church is a spectator and took policy of diplomatic silence because dominant groups are against these struggles. In Chengara land struggle ecumenical organization called Kerala Council of Churches and one or two Bishops took a stand in favor of the landless people.

2. Plachimada Struggle. It is a struggle of the marginalised people for their right to live and right to avail God given natural water. Again structural church continues silent on these issues. But some organizations like SCM took a bold stand.

3. Farmer’s Suicides. In Kerala in a district called Wayanadu there were many suicides due to crops failure and debts. Again Church is still in its lethargic mood and hesitates to get into the real justice issues.

But in contrary Church was very much active in the struggles to safeguard the interests of “education business” and to protect the “dignity” of the Bishops and so on. Church politics and denominational conflicts are the “real” engagements and “discourses” of the Church today. The question of just peace is a pertinent issue in Kerala where still caste system in its explicit and subtle ways existing in and out side the church. Violence against women (domestic and public), Dalits, Adivasis and other minorities are the real issues. Church is not ready to take sides with the fisher folk in their struggles and the movements fight against ecological disaster. But a casteist and a church support patriarchy need to come out of its compromising stands to support dominant structures. Church is satisfied itself in doing some charity works. Although the Church in India deserves credit for sowing the seed of social revolution, it could not recognize or own its own offspring. The institutional framework it has built up over the centuries are being used to support exploitative and oppressive structures. It is true there are groups and movements within the Church which are its liberating missions. They need to be strengthened.

Let me conclude by concluding remarks of the statement, “..our peace-building will of necessity criticize, denounce, advocate, and resist as well as proclaim, empower, console, reconcile, and heal. Peace makers will speak against and speak for, tear down and buildup, lament and celebrate, grieve and rejoice”. We are called to strive for a just peace and need to have a vision of new heaven and earth.