Blessed are the Peacemakers

Blessed are the Peacemakers

“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.”[1]

What is a peacemaker? Would President Harry Truman be considered a peacemaker for forcing Japan to surrender, thus ending World War II, by dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? It is argued, perhaps correctly, that such an overwhelming use of force and destruction saved many more lives than it cost, both American and Japanese. And even if we grant that to be true, does it necessarily follow that Truman and his advisors were peacemakers? Far be it from me to judge his decision; I would not have wanted to be in that position. But from the standpoint of the life and teachings of Jesus and of this beatitude in particular, can anyone resorting to violence in search of peace be considered a peacemaker when Jesus refused to resist his violent oppressors to preserve his own life or the lives of his followers?

President Ronald Reagan was famous for touting peace through strength, which has been a guiding principle of the United States for the past century or so. Once a nation has sufficient miliary might and overwhelming stockpiles of lethal armaments, no one would dare attack them for fear of certain retaliatory annihilation. Or so the theory goes. I think our current war with Iran, as well as the war between Russia and Ukraine, forces us to rethink the traditional “wisdom” of conflict resolution. Times are changing, as is warfare. We can no longer bomb another nation into submission, at least not with traditional weaponry. We may change certain behaviors and rearrange alliances, but we cannot change heart-felt loyalties. Is peace through strength only possible through physical or military might?

Russia has been bombing Ukraine relentlessly for over four years. Russia has a much larger army, more tanks, and superior munitions. But that has yet to dampen the will of the Ukrainian people to fight off the advances of their bully-of-a-neighbor to the east. And for all the destruction and havoc resulting from the bombing, Russia’s relentless assaults have only strengthened Ukraine’s resolve to resist. In spite of the violent onslaught on their homeland, most Ukrainians continue with their lives, adapting to their new realities and defying Putin’s attempts to incorporate them back into Mother Russia. And even if Russia were to prevail and overtake all of Ukraine, would that bring peace? I doubt it. Being beaten or bombed into submission only creates a persistent animosity and a long-term, opportunistic seeking for occasions to resist the invading authority and express one’s internal refusal to embrace the terms of surrender. We need look no further than the behaviors and attitudes of some in the American South 160 years after the end of our Civil War (or the “war of the northern aggression” in the minds of many southerners).

Which brings me to theories about national security, and what is required to live in peace. President Trump recently identified acquiring Greenland by whatever means necessary as a national security imperative. From the responses of the people of Greenland, Denmark, and most other countries of Europe, Trump’s stance is appallingly unnecessary and unjust. He claims we would acquire Greenland by “purchasing” it, by negotiating for it, or by force if necessary. Assuming the acquisition of Greenland would help secure the national interests of the United States to live in peace, what of the people of Greenland? Or those of Canada, who Trump claims should become our 51^st state? Or of those in Venezuela, whose national leader (albeit a brutal dictator) was forcibly removed from office and extradited to the US? Do we think their citizens consider the US a compatible ally whose interests for national security align with their desire to live their lives in peace? And what about the people of Cuba and Iran? Without judging the motivations or wisdom behind current and past foreign policies of the US, can we be considered peacemakers? In my opinion, and in keeping with my understanding of the life and teachings of Jesus, no, we cannot.

For all our strength, prosperity, and good works, we are a county that established itself through violent means, has maintained itself through violence, and continues to secure and expand its interests through violence, including for its “peaceful” intentions. There is an uncomfortable disconnect between calling ourselves a Christian nation and the words of Jesus, “Blessed are the peacemakers…” Peace through strength, as currently understood, requires having power over another. In the prescient words of Bob Dylan, “…they got a lot of forks ‘n knives, and they got to cut somethin’…”[2]

The fact is that attaining peace through violence has arguably never brought about a stable, enduring peace. Peace through building mutual respect and interdependence may be a superior path to peace, although I admittedly do not know how best to bring that about in a world so hungry for the sort of power flowing from wide-spread military might and the willingness to use it. More next week.

This is the 16^thin a series titled Blessedness and Woe.Life Notes are my explorations into mysteries that interest me. They are invitations for readers to explore more deeply into life’s mysteries. Engage with me or explore contemplative spiritual direction at ghildenbrand@outlook.com.

---

[1] Matthew 5:9

[2] Bob Dylan, partial lyrics from New York Town, 1962.