Peace is the aim of war. With such an important intention, we must commit ourselves then to carefully defining the word. What is peace? By what standard do we infuse the word peace with meaning? A philosophical approach to defining peace may consider many competing values to derive meaning for the term. The Christian must see only shalom.
The defeat of an aggressor may win peace, but surrendering to an attacker may also result in the same peace. Going to war to overcome existential evil may bring about the conditions for peace. Ceding territory or sovereignty might be the seeds of peace. How we define peace, and the experience of gaining or having peace, draws from almost infinite perspectives of winners and losers. Peace as the aim of war is a complex topic. As we work to understand the relationship between war and peace, we often conclude, as President Lyndon B. Johnson did, saying, “In modern warfare there are no victors; there are only survivors.”
The nuance required in thinking about a definition of peace demands a careful approach and the use of wide-ranging sources. If peace is the aim of war, can we have in mind a condition that is simply defined as the cessation of kinetic conflict? Is tranquility or calm composed solely of the absence of rancor? A simple explanation of the term will probably default to a dictionary definition that says peace is calm in personal circumstances and a state of concord or harmony when mentioning the topic in the geopolitical sphere. But what—we must continue to ask—will we do and not do to achieve this experience of peace? What cost will we pay? Is tranquility achieved through “any means necessary” an acceptable approach? Philosophy gives us myriad arguments from which to build our understanding and definition and the range of perspectives will lead to many a rabbit hole. Some philosophers will proffer the notion that seeking peace through any level of violence, destruction, and the loss of human dignity needed is acceptable to success. Peace—declared in these terms —as an aim justifies a full display of might. We will also have to consider an equal number who say that peace is best achieved only through pacifism in all its range of meanings. One-sided definitions are common, but are they ideal?
Christians should derive their description of peace from different sources. The Bible is to be the primary reference, and the definition will expand through the teaching of God’s people through history. Two words primarily define peace in the Bible: shalom in the Hebrew and eirene in the Greek language texts. Shalom is a state defined by much more than the absence of conflict. It carries the meaning of completeness, of a state where everything is as it should be. The word shalom carries the weight of God’s design for the world He made being ‘good.’ It is the shalom that is disrupted by the Fall in the Garden, and it is the restoration of shalom that is the aim of God’s redemptive work in history. Eirene carries the same definition in biblical Greek as a noun, but key texts use the word to describe those who pursue peace. Jesus famously declares “Blessed are the peacemakers [εἰρηνοποιοί]”, blessing those who actively pursue peace in conflict to the good of all parties. Devoting oneself to the pursuit of peace brings the soul into accord with the heart of God in Jesus as Paul writes in Colossians; “For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace [εἰρηνοποιήσας] by the blood of his cross.” (1:19-20)
Shalom and its cognate, eirene, have their root in the heart of the God of Peace [Romans 15:33; 1 Thessalonians 5:23]. This means that any definition we use must reflect the holistic concern that God has for all of creation. There are no winners or losers in war in God’s vision of peace. There are only image-bearers on both sides whom He wants to have an all-encompassing peace. And this peace is multifaceted. It is tranquility and security that are matched to justice and wholeness. The defeated need to be treated justly, as this gives them their sense of security. This security contributes to the tranquility in which they rest, not having to be constantly seeking to right injustice at the hands of the aggressor. A life of serenity is possible through the restoration of and provision for human dignity. Ensuring this justice and maintaining this dignity is the responsibility of the victor. God demands of His people that they live out his heart of shalom.
To speak about war, we must be clear about our definition of its aim, peace. Peace as an aim of engaging in war should govern the decision to go to war and the manner in which we fight in war. The choice to go to war, particularly as an aggressor, must include the consideration of how the violence will conclude in such a way as to ensure the dignity of the defeated people. Many people may read this prescription as idealistic to a fault, especially in this day and age of weapons that can effectively destroy the world many times over. Christians are not given the option to view this humanizing perspective as unrealistic. We must pursue every aspect of life, including war or surrender, with the heart of God as our primary source of definition and our guiding principle.
Varying degrees of hopelessness are an accepted part of life in our world. Better stated, hopelessness has marked life since the moment that rebellion against God entered the mortal plane. Hope requires a foundation, and when it is vested in the ever shifting, rapidly changing, only marginally trustworthy structures of the human world, that foundation can crumble in an instant. Claiming hope while secretly wondering when the ground beneath our feet will give way is no hope at all.
LOVE | ACCEPT | FORGIVE 