The Problem with Disarmament

In the early 1900s there were some impressive pacifists, politicians, and discussions on the matters of peace, war, and disarmament. While there were politically involved pacifists working hard for the cause of international peace there were also tyrants running around Europe taking what they please through violence. There was a great desire for peace, absence of war and avoidance of international violence among many European countries and their political authorities. However, there was also great struggle for those leaders on how to best pursue peace (nothing has changed). Some authorities listened to the pacifists but the strategy of the pacifists fell short for a few solid reasons which don't need examining here. That's easy to see in retrospect. Here are some words of powerful leaders at the time.

"It is a great mistake to mix up disarmament and peace. When you have peace you will have disarmament." -Winston Churchill

"...the trouble with diarmament is that the problem of war is tackled upsid down and at the wrong end. . . . Nations don't distrust each other because they are armedl they are armed becase they distrust each other. . . . To want disarmament before a minimum of commom agreement on fundamentals is as absurd as to want people to go undressed in winter." -Salvador de Madariaga, chairman of the League of Nations Disarmament Commission

Both these men make excellent points. There can not be a laying down of one's weapons unless one is first embracing peace. If one does not have peace living inside them then their disarmament is of little use to them for now they not only are unarmed but don't have good reason to be unarmed and have not only disarmed themselves of lethal weapons but also of reason and conviction. It is possible that one may learn of peace as they begin to lay down their weapons but that peace won't be truly achieved merely by laying down one's weapons. More must happen. This type of behavior altering doesn't create longstanding or hopeful peace. It creates a ticking time-bomb. I have left the ways of violence because I have firstly come to the peace of Christ. I did not drop my weapons until I decided I must pick up a cross and had the willingness to do so. The same is true for groups.

The Church is able to be a nonviolent entity because it exists within the peace of Christ. She is able to say "thy will be done" and cling to the cross in which she was birthed. She exists within the beautiful sharing of Christ's death, burial, resurrection, and victory over sin and death and as a result she is able to turn swords into plowshares. She no longer has reason to destroy but only to cultivate. This is, as they say, the business of the church; to cultivate eternal life on earth by clinging to Christ's redeeming blood as His body. Until Jesus returns in glory the pain and suffering will not cease. However, since Christ has come man has reason to not cause pain and suffering but great reason to endure it.

I have always maintained that nonviolence is not a way to discipleship but a take away from discipleship. We drop our weapons and pick up our towels because Christ has shown us the way and told us we can and we believed him. While I believe the Church is able to live this nonviolent witness on earth (through the Holy Spirit) I don't expect nations to do it. Since peace and trust must come before disarmament there must be a transformation of nations, their leaders, and the relationship between nations and national leaders. Until a system or individual is under Christ's reign there is little reason to expect lasting disarmament to exist within that system or individual.

Until all things are made right there will be sin and corruption among mankind. Until there is peace there will be violence and war. Until all nations are brought back to God they will be enemies and unable to embrace one another as true siblings belonging to the same Creator Father. I believe there is one entity on this earth that has the best chance of exampling disarmament and it is the one that is founded in Christ; the Church. The hard question then is how the Church functions in the world which refuses to enter the redemption of Christ. Do she try to get those lacking peace to "play nice" with one another even though she knows it is a shortcoming of her mission, stand back at a distance to create clear contrast while demanding repentance of individuals and nations, or get in the middle of everything seeking to be makers of peace while suffering and refusing to seek power? My bet is that the answer is far more expansive than any one of those options (while also including all of them at various times).