A. From New Call to Pasadena

We jump now from global ecumenical circles to an arena in which I have had more personal involvement, as a participant in New Call to Peacemaking activities, attendance at the Pasadena conference, and now the interaction with the new evangelical peace program described below.

In 1976, American Mennonites joined with Brethren and Quakers to explore anew their historic commitment to peace, under the banner of "New Call to Peacemaking." This initiative had been launched by evangelical Friends seeking to recover and extend the biblical peace testimony of early Quakers. Numerous regional meetings between the three "historic peace churches" culminated in a 1978 National Conference at Green Lake, Wis. Two more national conferences followed, in 1980 and 1982. With part-time staff and occasional steering committee meetings, "New Call" continues to sponsor publications and gatherings that seek both to meet needs within the peace church constituency and to promote peace activity among other Christians.

Norval Hadley, who is an Evangelical Quaker on the staff of World Vision and was one of the founders of New Call to Peacemaking, was largely responsible for NCP joining as sponsor of the 1983 Pasadena conference called "The Church and peacemaking in the nuclear age: A conference on biblical perspectives." This event brought together some 1,400 registrants; many others attended only evening sessions. The Mennonites, Quakers and Brethren made up a "New Call" caucus of more than one hundred persons.

Overall sponsorship for this gathering represented a cross-section of the North American evangelical constituency. A high view of biblical authority was assumed as a basis for discussion. The intention in the plenary sessions and workshops was to cover the spectrum on war/peace issues, from advocates of conventional militarism and nuclear preparedness through various types of "just war" proponents to convinced total pacifists.

The conference was planned as a dialogue among various positions represented in the evangelical community. It did not aim at any consensus, no resolutions were passed or statements adopted. Although the packed plenary sessions did not allow for sustained debate, conversations continued in the hallways and over meals.¹⁴

For some reason, several of the well-known evangelical leaders identified with the aggressive "peace through strength" politics of the Reagan administration, persons whose names had appeared in earlier announcements of the conference, did not show up. Thus the spokespersons for that viewpoint were not impressive. David Breeze, a Wichita, Kan., evangelist, came across as a militant patriot with no apparent hesitation about using nuclear weapons to rid the world of communism. On the other hand, Richard Mouw andJohn Stott, although arguing from a just war position, sounded almost like nuclear pacifists. Enthusiastic response to major addresses by Ronald Sider and Jim Wallis suggested that the doves outnumbered the hawks.

B. The NAE reacts

Not surprisingly, the Pasadena conference was disturbing to some leaders of major evangelical institutions. Concerned that the conference was much influenced by the pacifist or near-pacifist voices, they set out to correct the perceived imbalance. From an essay published in Evangelical Newsletter (February 1, 1985), we learn that a major program initiative of the National Association of Evangelicals, now known as the "Peace, Freedom and Security Studies Program" (PFSS) began as a response to that 1983 Pasadena conference.

The NAE is an umbrella organization for Evangelicals in the United States, including 45,000 congregations from 78 denominations (45 denominations are members), representing a constituency of 10 to 15 million. Mennonite bodies holding membership include the Mennonite Brethren and the Brethren in Christ.

Since the NAE has not typically addressed public policy issues in the manner of such ecumenical bodies as the National Council of Churches, it is appropriate to ask why they have launched this new initiative directed to the public debate on foreign and defense policy.

Brian O'Connell, who continues until now as the staffperson for that program, wrote in 1985 that evangelicals need new voices, new alternatives and a balanced discussion that would respond to the "disproportionate influence" of "one distinct wing" (i.e. the pacifist perspective).

O'Connell had then completed the first major PFSS research project -- a survey of the involvement of evangelical institutions (denominations, associations, colleges and seminaries) in war/peace concerns. His October, 1984 report was titled "American evangelicalism and the war/peace debate: Analyzing the current state of discussion." The report observed that the level of official evangelical involvement was rather low and "ad hoc," representing a variety of theological and political opinions.

But the report expressed concern over the fact that in those places, especially some seminaries and colleges where war and peace issues were discussed, the most popular speakers, including Myron Augsburger, Ronald Sider and Jim Wallis, were pacifists. The report recommended further work on gathering resources, developing informed leadership and setting forth guidelines that would "clarify the biblical, theological, educational, and political standards for shaping the war/peace debate within the evangelical community."

C. The PFSS "Guidelines"

These "Guidelines" were released by the NAE Board on October 8, 1986, in a 48-page pamphlet.¹⁵ In its foreword, the document calls attention to the special contribution of staff members of the World Without War Council and the Institute on Religion and Democracy, along with staff coordinator O'Connell and the participation of more than 60 clergy and lay leaders. The 20-member Advisory Board includes Myron Augsburger of the Mennonite Church and Arthur Climenhaga from the Brethren in Christ.

It is intriguing to discover that the two "non-evangelical" advisers to the project are George Weigel, Catholic scholar now with the James Madison Foundation, and Robert Pickus, a Jewish pacifist long associated with the World Without War Council. These two are joined by Kent Hill, Dean Curry of Messiah College, Grantham, Pa., and several others in a PFSS working group.

The NAE document claims to "differ significantly from... the work of some other influential American religious organizations," offering "a different focus, analysis, and prescription for work in pursuit of peace." Its intention is to work simultaneously for peace, freedom and security, by going beyond the existing polarization in the (mainline) churches, which are described as captive to secular politics, both left and right. The distinctive NAE approach seeks to "meld" truths from each of the two poles: "peace and disarmament" and "security and liberty," in developing an alternative that will enable Western democracies to steer a course between the threats of totalitarianism and annihilation.

The nine major sections of the document are: program history, intentions, biblical foundations, current obstacles, political understandings, policy goals, program objectives, assessment criteria, and administrative arrangements. It is designed as a study guide, not as a comprehensive position statement.

Given the character of U.S. evangelicalism, one would not expect the NAE to reflect a pacifist orientation, but it is rather troubling to discover the way Guidelines treats biblical pacifism. With a nod of recognition to the witness of the historic peace churches, they dismiss that testimony to a 10-page appendix entitled "Other Voices," along with some twenty other opinions that were rejected by the drafters of the pamphlet, even though they represent views held by many members of the evangelical community.

Most surprising, for an evangelical pronouncement, is how little the document offers in the way of distinctively Christian resources. The biblical section, just three pages, sets forth a list of six "principles," with much of the discussion given to refutation of "pacifist" views. Both the language and the content of most of the document tend to reflect secular political values and modes of thought. For example, the pamphlet is full of terms such as "values," "responsibility," "complexity," "democracy" and "human rights" -- terms that seem to be more appropriate for the vocabulary of "secular humanism" than of biblical theology.

Overall, the document fails to stress the unique nature and role of the Christian church, or to recognize the international dimension of global Christianity. The assumed world view is almost totally East/West, with continual references to the totalitarian threat from the USSR and the need for a militarily strong United States. For the NAE, the U.S. nation-state appears to be the primary frame of reference; there are frequent assertions that U.S. is called to a position of influence in world affairs. The U.S. national agenda seems to be accepted without question, and the concern is simply how the church can contribute to it. What seems important to their orientation is to project a viewpoint that will make them welcome in the corridors of power where influence on public policy can be achieved.

There are some pleasant surprises, however. What I find most interesting is the rejection of the old conservative axiom that war is inevitable -- whether that is based on a particular reading of the biblical text ("wars and rumors of wars") or on a pessimistic appraisal of human history. It is intriguing that Guidelines puts that view, titled "War is in the nature of things," in the same category of rejected "Other voices" with "Love your enemy" and historic Christian pacifism.

Does this mean that the PFSS people believe that war can be avoided, even abolished? They do call for new efforts to build institutions for international order, but my sense of the overall perspective of Guidelines is that their preference is for "peace through strength." It would be a deterrent route, by way of the big stick, which in our kind of world means a nuclear arsenal. Yet for some moral analysts, that is only a few degrees removed from terrorism.

Also on the positive side is the call for more attention to nonviolent alternatives for conflict resolution in international situations. They criticize the excesses of super-patriotism and extreme reliance on the military. And there are urgings for finding nonviolent ways to bring about change in the Soviet Union.

In releasing the Guidelines, the NAE leaders state that they are initiating an open process. "It is the first word, not the last." They are concerned with developing informed evangelical leadership to carry out the church's role as teacher to the whole society.

D. Conversations with PFSS folk

NAE has sponsored a series of regional meetings planned to explain the PFSS program and "consider the implications of its Guidelines for the evangelical community and our nation." I attended the first of these, at Carol Stream, Ill., in March 1987. Of the 25 persons attending, most represented evangelical denominations and organizations; only a few were working pastors.

The day began with Dr. Kent Hill, executive director of the Institute on Religion and Democracy, presenting a seven-point critique of the North American peace movement, which he described as overly concerned with nuclear weapons rather than the threat of totalitarianism. He also warned of the theological heresy of "survivalism" and the abandonment of classic just war/pacifist views.

Most of the day was then given to discussion of sections of the document, with most of the talking by NAE staff member Brian O'Connell and Executive Director Billy Melvin. They claimed that PFSS is basically an educational program, designed to set the framework for proper evangelical entry into the political arena. The NAE will not take positions on political issues. At one point O'Connell explained that the NAE would never declare itself as pro or con on such questions as the Strategic Defense Initiative or the Nicaraguan contras. Their persistent concern is to uphold both peace and freedom in ways that have been abandoned by most other religious groups.

In the day's discussion, the five peace church persons present (Dale Brown, Dick Blackburn, Thomas Finger, Greg Zimmerman, and myself) got more than our fair share of floor time, not because we set out to dominate, but rather because it seemed that most of the others were hesitant to talk. From our various perspectives, we expressed the kind of critique outlined in my brief analysis above, and at some points got support from others in attendance. It was definitely a worthwhile opportunity to get some firsthand acquaintance with the personnel and strategy of the PFSS program. Although differences among us were addressed frankly, the general atmosphere was cordial. Perhaps most significant was the apparent newness of this kind of discussion for most evangelical participants.

Both in the discussion at Carol Stream and in follow-up correspondence and conversations with Brian O'Connell, I have sought to affirm the good things in the program and find ways that we can contribute constructively to their process. In a letter to O'Connell, I mentioned my agreement with "the recognized need for more attention to the international perspective, the call to work at nonviolent alternatives, the need for new international institutions, and the concern for constructive strategies in dealing with the Soviet Union. I believe that our constituency can offer unique resources for working together on these tasks."

E. PFSS and pacifist theology

The NAE project helps to illuminate the meaning and the difficulties of the new "pacifist political witness" introduced in section IC. In the Guidelines, the traditional biblical pacifism of the peace churches is assumed to be politically withdrawn (i.e., sectarian) and thus irrelevant to the NAE concern to provide guidance to the nation's decision makers. On the other hand, the document severely criticizes the political "pacifism" of mainlineU.S. churches, describing it as almost always linked with a secular/ liberal/leftist ideology, which they call an unholy mix seasoned by "passion and ignorance."

The PFSS leaders have ignored the possibility of a gospel-rooted nonviolent strategy, politically informed but ideologically independent and ecumenically (i.e., globally) responsible. The NAE authors do not engage directly with the solid biblical pacifist theology of Arthur Cochrane, John Howard Yoder, Stanley Hauerwas, Duane Friesen, Dale Brown, Ronald Sider, Richard McSorley, James McClendon and others. This body of thorough scholarship simply cannot be dismissed casually as "other voices."

Dean Curry, in his half of the dialogue book on war and peace shared with Myron Augsburger, presents a critique of pacifism that in many respects parallels the NAE document.¹⁶ In his chapter, "The Perils of Contemporary Pacifism," Curry rejects the kind of pacifist witness outlined in sections IC and ID, evaluating it solely in terms of Niebuhrian political realism as he overlooks the biblical foundations for such a view. A similar decision to declare pacifism irrelevant to the political process seems to pervade the NAE project. It is difficult to assess the actual impact of PFSS in the year and a half since the Guidelines were released. It has received a fair amount of attention from the evangelical press and other commentators. But the original plans for more consultations and publications have been scaled back to some degree.¹⁷

As part of my "peace theology consultant" work, I have spent a lot of time studying the Guidelines and related documents and writing several analytical essays. Other peace church leaders have responded vigorously as individuals and the Brethren in Christ denomination has presented a formal statement to the NAE, criticizing the inadequacies of Guidelines use of Scripture, role of the church, and its perspective on evangelical pacifism.¹⁸