“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God.”

– Matthew 5:9 (NIV)

The whole discussion about the Christian Peacemakers Teams has got me thinking about this verse from the Sermon on the Mount. I don’t really agree with how the CPT chooses to do what they do. And I’m not sure I even agree with most of their basic premises, although I can’t bring myself to point my finger at them and say, “You are wrong.”

Perhaps I’m wrong.

I decided I need to spend some time looking at my whole understanding of that verse above and what Jesus really meant when he said it.

Now I’m no theologian. I’m not even especially smart. But I do know how to read. And I think I can ask some decent questions.

Who was Jesus referring to when he spoke this particular beatitude?
What do peacemakers look like? What do they do?
What does it mean to be called a son of God?

The good news is we have a whole ton of resources available. Our church is in the middle of a series on the Be-Attitudes. So I am obviously looking forward to the week we are taught about the peacemakers.

John Piper is one of my favorite current heavy theological thinkers. He has an article on the subject, appropriately titled Blessed Are the Peacemakers, which I think I will read a few more times before I get started.

That should give me enough to get started on in amongst all the other life obligations I have…

I’ve been having a running discussion with Dan Traube about the recent incident involving the rescue of three CPT guys who were rescued from their kidnappers the other day over at Stones Cry Out .

Dan seems like a really great guy and our discussion has helped me get my mind around what was bugging me when I first looked into the whole issue of their initial apparent ingratitude for the rescue of their workers. I appreciate the time he took to go back and forth with me. I summed it up this way:

The trouble is the only direct action [the CPT] are willing to take is to “get in the way” of the US and her allies. By routinely interfering with predominately only one political bent, they demonstrate clearly that they are really a political protest organization hiding behind Christian missionary language.

The CPT supporters are quick to emphasize the bravery of the teams that go into dangerous places. There’s no doubt they place themselves in danger.

But is it bravery when they attempt to disguise their political activism as Christian missionary work knowing full well the people they protest most strongly will take a more kindly view of them as missionaries then as political activists?

And that whole discussion, my friends, quickly spins off into the political realm. And we all know that I am steering away from politics here these days…

I know I promised to steer away from political stuff. But since this deals with fellow Christians, I am going to go there.

Four men from a group called Christian Peacemaker Teams, in Iraq basically protesting what the US & Coalition forces are doing, were taken hostage back on 26 November. It should be pointed out that the people who kidnapped them were the very people these four guys were supporting, not the people they were protesting against. Their self proclaimed goal was “documenting and focusing attention on the issue of detainee abuses… but the current focus of the team has expanded to include efforts to end occupation and militarization of the country.” The CPT motto appropriately is “Getting In the Way.”

Suffice it to say that I fundamentally disagree with their core purpose which “seeks to enlist the response of the whole church in conscientious objection to war.” I do understand the principles behind genuine conscientious objectors, and I respect Christians who hold those beliefs strongly. I happen to disagree with those who claim that war is never the right answer for Christians, though. There are times when evil must be resisted, and in our fallen world that means that there are times when violent force must be used. Now getting into the specifics of the current situation in Iraq gets too close to politics so I’m not going there today.

But that brings us back to the four guys from CPT who got in the way and found themselves kidnapped by the very people they went there to support. One of the four, happened to be the American of the group, was found dead on 10 March 2006. Based on intelligence gathered from a captured enemy combatant, a commando raid went in yesterday and found the other three alive and brought them out of captivity.

CPT posted a press release on their web site initially headlined, “CPT: Celebrates the Peacemakers Release.” In the second paragraph, after claiming that their guys were released, they said, “We believe that the illegal occupation of Iraq by Multinational Forces is the root cause of the insecurity which led to this kidnapping and so much pain and suffering in Iraq.” (UPDATE: I found the original wording of the statement again here)

It seems obvious to me that these folks don’t have a firm grasp on the English language. It is readily apparent to most folks that the only way these guys would have been “released” by the kidnappers who held them is in the same manner that the American was “released” a couple of weeks ago, with a bullet in the head. They were rescued by violent warriors who were willing to put their own lives on the line to see that the ingrates were not executed by their captors.

Now, since they received such a backlash from their fundamental misstatement and obvious total ingratitude of what was done for them, they have revised their press release to say that their guys were, get this, “freed.” It seems a weasely choice of wording to me, but I guess if they actually came out and said the truth, that their people were rescued, then they would have to re-think their fundamental beliefs about violence never being the right answer. No point in examining a core belief, is there?

Perhaps part of the answer can be found in the wording of Statement of Conviction which the guys who were kidnapped (one of whom was killed)signed, which says in part

“We reject the use of violent force to save our lives should we be kidnapped, held hostage, or caught in the middle of a violent conflict situation. We also reject violence to punish anyone who harms us. We ask for equal justice in the arrest and trial of anyone, soldier or civilian, who commits an act of violence, and we ask that there be no retaliation on their relatives or property. We forgive those who consider us their enemies. Therefore, any penalty should be in the spirit of restorative justice, rather than in the form of violent retribution.”

So basically they forgive those who are their enemies. That part makes sense to me. But unfortunately their reaction to this whole chain of events crystallizes what can be seen throughout their web site, namely that they’ve twisted the concept of “forgive your enemies” to the point where part of it for them now includes, “resent your friends.”

I’m sorry, but that doesn’t work for me. It’s simply not what I find when I read the Bible.

But hey, at least they stayed true to their motto. They certainly got in the way.

UPDATE:

I’m having a running debate with Dan over at Stones Cry Out about whether the CPT guys really have a balanced view of things. Interesting for me anyway…