2007 World Conference Legislation

H-1 World Church Peace and Justice Committee Report

To the First Presidency and the World Conference:
The World Church Peace and Justice Committee is composed of thirteen members representing a variety of age groups, nationalities, military experience, and personal perspectives on peace and justice issues. The diversity was intentional, given the topics under consideration by this committee and the broad perspectives found within the church body that we represent.

The committee discussed two specific legislative items from the 2004 World Conference. In addition to the legislation, several issues were considered during this inter-Conference period. A summary of the work and deliberations of the committee is given here.

Restorative Justice
At the 2004 World Conference, item G-2 Restorative Justice came to the floor from the Australia Mission Centre. It proposed that the World Church

• explore ways in which it can encourage and pursue principles of restorative justice with other faith traditions;
• suggest to members and friends who are legally trained that they explore avenues in which restorative justice principles may be incorporated into their practices; and
• encourage members and friends to write to appropriate heads of Departments of Justice asking that they seek to explore restorative justice as a paradigm of possibility in their jurisdiction.

After some debate, the Conference referred the matter to the Peace and Justice Office for its consideration. In turn, Peace and Justice Ministries coordinator Andrew Bolton placed it on the agenda for discussion by the World Church Peace and Justice Committee. In due course it was decided that the 2006 Peace Colloquy would have restorative justice as its focus. From October 27 to 29, 2006, the Temple was the venue for a highly successful colloquy around the theme Justice for Everyone: Reframe, Repair, and Restore. Howard Zehr, co-director of the Center for Justice and Peacebuilding at Eastern Mennonite University, was the keynote speaker and recipient of the 2006 International Peace Award. More than 400 people from the USA, Canada, and Australia attended the dozens of workshops and presentations on the Saturday of the colloquy.

It is the view of the Peace and Justice Office, in consultation with the proponents of the resolution and the committee, that, given the profile around restorative justice since 2004, G-2 need not be referred back to the World Conference. Members are invited to review the issues and themes that have been well documented on the church Web site (http://www.CofChrist.org/peacecolloquy/2006/default2006.asp).

Just War Tradition
At the 2004 World Conference, item G-9, “Defining the Just War Tradition,” came to the floor from the Central USA Mission Center. It proposed that the World Church authorize the preparation of a statement and definition of just war criteria, together with a scriptural and theological rationale; and share the statement at the next World Conference of the Community of Christ and in the Herald for consideration and application by the wider membership.

After discussion of the resolution and proposed amendments, the Conference voted to refer the entire matter to the First Presidency, who referred G-9 to the World Church Peace and Justice Committee for consideration. The majority of the committee’s work during this inter-Conference period was spent exploring this topic and developing a framework for understanding the just war position. As mandated by G-9, the committee developed a statement and definition of just war criteria that we have called the Just War Framework. It is currently undergoing a process of review and discussion with World Church leadership for consideration as a statement of the World Church. The committee is developing at least one Herald article and other educational resources for church members, which can be found along with the framework on the committee’s Web site (http://www.CofChrist.org/peacecomm/).

It is important to acknowledge that the committee was able to reach consensus about defining the just war tradition without each individual adopting this perspective as their own personal stance. Although the committee represented diverse views and backgrounds, the discussion was conducted with a spirit of grace and heartfelt give-and-take in an atmosphere of respect.

Defining Just War Criteria and its Rationale
The just war tradition has a history of around 1,600 years in Christianity. The just war position sees war as evil, but it may be justified if it is used to prevent or stop great suffering or in the pursuit of a greater justice. What does it mean to love my neighbors if their human rights are being violated, if genocide is happening, or if they are being unjustly attacked? This is the key question asked by the just war tradition. However, since violence and coercion can have terrible consequences, using them to enforce human rights, defend one’s country, or resist oppression must be contained and guided by a limiting ethical framework. Thus, certain criteria must be rigorously followed for the war to be within the just war tradition.

The World Church Peace and Justice Committee’s “Just War Framework” outlines how just war criteria can be used to examine three phases of war: the just initiation of war, just conduct in war, and just termination of war. The committee engaged in dialogue and debate about the criteria for each stage, eventually reaching a consensus about how each is defined. The committee acknowledged that the nature of modern conflicts, such as civil war and acts of terrorism, that do not fit the model of nation-state war, present a challenge to just war criteria. Issues that arose in our discussion included: proportionality; discrimination, especially the identification of non-combatants in modern war; cultural differences in identifying weapons of oppression; and determining when a war has reached a just end.

It should be noted that the just war tradition is a philosophical and ethical stance also bound by law, rather than a biblical position. The committee used a variety of resources including scholarly work on the just war tradition from Augustine onwards, the tradition of the worth of persons in the Community of Christ, the International Committee of the Red Cross, U.S. Army Rules of Engagement, and other relevant literature, as well as scriptural and theological resources in developing its framework. The committee also recognizes that there are other statements on the criteria for just war that members of the church might draw upon in their evaluations and decision making.

In the Community of Christ, a central value is the worth of all persons. The just war tradition seeks to be faithful to the worth of all persons in a fallen, violent world. Violence is seen as evil and must be restrained. At same time, the weak, vulnerable, innocent and defenseless should be protected. In the broader context of the Christian church, the nonviolent stance of Christians began to change around 313 AD, when Constantine, as Roman emperor, adopted an official policy of tolerance of Christians. Saint Ambrose (339–397) and Saint Augustine (354–430) then successfully introduced the just war tradition into Christianity. They drew on the teachings of Greek and Roman philosophers, including Cicero. Around eight hundred years later, Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) summarized and further developed Augustine’s teachings on the just war tradition. The just war position was affirmed by most Protestant movements at the Reformation: for Lutherans in the Augsburg Confession (1530), the Church of England/Episcopalians in the Thirty-Nine Articles (1571), and Presbyterians and Congregationalists in the Westminster Confession, 1648. It is also the main position among Baptists and Methodists. Thinkers, both religious and secular, have continued to add to the tradition down to the twenty-first century. The just war tradition is the dominant position among Christians today.

Spectrum of ethical positions on war
The Just War Framework outlined here is only one position represented by members of Community of Christ. It is important to stress that the just war tradition, whilst held by the majority of Christians today, is not the only position on war. There are those who believe only in nonviolent action. Some are Christian realists who say it is impossible to be moral in war and all one can do is choose the lesser of two evils. There are those who say they should be simply obedient to whatever their country decides about war. Some advocate Holy War or Crusade which when mandated by God, should be pursued obediently without restraint or mercy. All these positions are present in the Community of Christ and the debate about what is really the most ethical course of action should continue in the church.

The just war framework is intended to help those who want to take the just war tradition seriously and to apply it rigorously. It is hoped that this framework will enable members to contribute their voices in an informed way on particular wars as citizens and voters and provide helpful ethical guidance for those who serve in the military or who would consider military service in times of war. The consequence for those who apply just war rules seriously in a violent conflict is that they must be selective conscientious objectors. That is, if the war is just, they will be willing to fight or support it. But if it is not just, they can refuse to fight or support it and be willing, out of conscience, to protest and resist such a war.

We caution that the church membership may be done a disservice by discussing the just war framework alone without a similar exploration of other ethical positions on war. It is thus not intended that the committee’s framework become the official church position on the ethics of war. Those members that hold other positions (such as pacifism or Christian realism) are encouraged to speak from their ethical positions in any debate on the ethics of war within the church or wider society.

Reconciliation with the Restoration Movement
It has been the practice of the World Church Peace and Justice Committee to initiate efforts to promote conditions of peace and justice. In this regard, and in response to stated desires to reconcile with those who have affiliated with “Restorationist” groups, the committee enthusiastically created a subcommittee to consider possibilities. Andrew Bolton, John Menzies, and Diane Kyser represented the committee in convening a group of people from the “Restorationists” (primarily those affiliated with the Conference of Restoration Branches) and members of the Community of Christ. Monthly meetings have been held since February 2005. Anchored by a retreat in the fall of that year, significant rapport and trust has been built among group members.

The group explored the possibility of a joint forum with representatives from the Conference of Restoration Branches, the Community of Christ, and other bodies, as deemed appropriate, to continue dialogue among the fellowships. This initiative received the support of the whole committee, and the First Presidency is supportive of ongoing dialogue and appointing members to the forum if the Conference of Restoration Branches agrees to support it.

Challenge to the Next Peace and Justice Committee
The committee strongly encourages the continued exploration of the ethics of war by completing a similar dialogue and framework development for other positions on war. This exploration will enable discussion about the just war tradition to be held in context of all the positions on war represented in the Community of Christ membership. However, we go further to ask: Is war inevitable? While human conflict may remain with us, this committee feels that a church committed to peace should be informed of, and highlight as appropriate, the most current research that examines how to move the world “beyond war.” Therefore, we recommend that the next committee examine this concept, including but not limited to, an exploration of

• the early signs of potential war, genocide or other conflicts;
• early conflict resolution and prevention strategies;
• peace-keeping strategies and agencies, because violent conflict is sometimes a means of peace-keeping;
• global structures, such as the UN, and how they can be made more effective at preventing wars, and local structures because it is these structures that act directly on the individuals affected by conflicts;
• global framings such as using the anchor of human rights and international criminal courts; and
• global strategies such as strengthening civil society and reducing the various levels of poverty, injustice, and other dynamics that otherwise become kindling for the fires of war.

Discussion of the preceding topics has been stimulating and enriching for committee members. Our regret is that the discussion has been limited to the few of us. Finding ways to broaden dialogue on these and other topics, some potentially divisive, is imperative. We have requested and are hopeful that opportunity will be offered during World Conference to experience such dialogues, creating models of deliberation that can be useful in varieties of church settings.

The committee would like to thank the First Presidency for the opportunity to serve the body of the Community of Christ in this manner and fully supports the continuation of the committee and its work in the next inter-Conference period.

World Church Peace and Justice Committee
Diane Kyser, co-chair
Jennifer Robinson, co-chair
Andrew Bolton
Matthew Bolton
Richard Cordova
Rod Downing
Susanne Holloway
Urbain Mbenga Mpiem Ley
Marjie Martens
John Menzies
Rick Sarre
Christie Skoor-Smith
Poul Wilson