As is my custom, I peruse the New York Times obituaries on a regular basis. During a recent perusal, I read the obit for a Dr. Glen Stassen, a noted theologian and peace activist. I was first struck by the fact that Glen Stassen was the son of the perennial Republican presidential candidate, Harold Stassen. That relationship was interesting in itself. However, in reading further I became intrigued by the theology/philosophy of Glen Stassen. Stassen's Ethic of Constructive Peacemaking was a novel one for me and I wondered if it is still being employed or if it had died with Dr. Stassen. In my mind, I found it interesting to ponder its efficacy and the prospects for its universal application in a world where other faiths and beliefs advise to the contrary. The pondering, in itself, was an interesting exercise. Perhaps, during your weekend of rest, you will find it interesting to so ponder as well.
Peace,
Peace,
*****
Dr. Stassen argued, Christian ethics demanded organized action to save the world from self-destruction.
“Christians need more than an ethic of ‘just say no,’ ” he wrote. “Jesus didn’t just say no to anger and revengeful resistance, but commanded transforming initiatives: ‘Go make peace with your brother or sister; go the second mile with the Roman soldier.’ ”
What Christians needed, he said, was “an ethic of constructive peacemaking.”
Theologians had long wrestled with the Christian response to war, and whether it was ever morally justified to kill. Two schools of thought had emerged: pacifism, which said it was never justified, and “just war” theory, which described circumstances in which killing in war was morally defensible. Dr. Stassen advocated what he called a third option: preventing wars from starting in the first place.
“Why do we only keep debating whether wars are justified?” he asked.
In “Just Peacemaking: Transforming Initiatives of Justice and Peace” (1992) and a dozen other books on nonviolence and conflict resolution, Dr. Stassen described techniques for hard-nosed negotiating in which both parties admit culpability for past deeds, take a clearheaded measure of the interests of the other side and sometimes make calculated unilateral initiatives.
“Biblical realism,” as he described the mind-set for negotiations like these, “is about diagnosing sin realistically and seeking deliverance, not merely about affirming some high ideals.”
