Peace or appeasement?

I'm sure there were many admirable qualities about Neville Chamberlain, the British Prime Minister who served England as the Second World War was taking shape in Europe. But today, he's best known for assuring the world that there was "peace in our time," based on nothing more than an agreement signed by Adolf Hitler. The difficulty of balancing peace with appeasement has been ever since perfectly illustrated by Chamberlain's eagerness to win peace, to the point that he could not discern how great a price should be paid for it.

This remains a thorny question among politicians of this vastly diverse world scene, and the ongoing conflicts in the Middle East are but one example of this. It's a difficult issue to work through, not the least of reasons being the religious differences between all parties involved. So it has been common for some who make their living as "ambassadors for peace" to try their hand at creating the right atmosphere for a lasting end to conflict.

So comes the current Catholic pope, Benedict, to make his appeal to the warring nations, and, of course, he bases his exhortations on the theology of peace as he understands it. He is reported in today's headlines saying, "The Gospel reassures us that God can make all things new, that history need not be repeated, that memories can be healed, that the bitter fruits of recrimination and hostility can be overcome, and that a future of justice, peace, prosperity and cooperation can arise for every man and woman, for the whole human family, and in a special way for the people who dwell in this land so dear to the heart of the Savior."

Now, the religious and the secular viewpoints have a common interest in peaceful relations among mankind, but they employ very different methods, especially if you take seriously the words of Jesus on the subject. Jesus said very bluntly, "Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." (Matthew 10:34) Of course, Jesus is also called "Prince of Peace" (Isaiah 9:6), so we can't call Him a warmonger for such language. But we must understand that true peace in the Bible's view begins with peace between men and God, and the Gospel is God's "peace mission", whereby, according to Paul, "God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation." (2 Corinthians 5:19)

The Bible states that, apart from the "justification of faith", there can be no "peace with God" (Romans 5:1). Without that, there is no real chance of lasting peace among men. The things that divide mankind are just too deep, too strongly felt, too tied to culture and tradition, and mostly too blocked by the core human motives of self-preservation to permit any worldly or political solution to human conflict, at least without significant alteration of the basic operations of the brain; which has been contemplated by many like Huxley (Brave New World), or Orwell (1984).

Meanwhile, it is a worthy objective to work toward a cessation of open warfare among nations, and most would grant that Benedict has nothing but the sincerest motives for doing his part. But to call men to have hope in "a future of justice, peace, prosperity and cooperation can arise for every man and woman" is a long shot at best, given the depth of differences that divide the people responsible for actually enforcing such a peace. And, to imply that "The Gospel reassures us that God can make all things new" in the context of worldly peace among nations that do not agree on the more fundamental issue of gaining peace with God, is an attempt to short-cut the Gospel message into a "let's just all get along" sermon. That not only misleads any who would still hope for world peace, it seriously distorts the message of the Gospel, and turns biblical peace into worldly appeasement.