What is the ELCA’s Social Statement on Peace

Within the past decade, the global community of nations has entered a new era in international relations। We have witnessed the end of 50 years of Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union, along with their respective allies, and the resulting dramatic reduction of the threat of global war. At the same time, the 1990s has seen a surge in regional and local armed conflict and ethnic rivalry. New opportunities and challenges raise fresh questions about our nation’s role in promoting global peace and justice.

Lutherans in the United States have a longstanding interest in and concern for peace among the nations। Lutheran church bodies have spoken officially on war and peace since at least 1922. Such statements express a range of theological perspectives and ethical emphases, in part conditioned by the historical circumstances surrounding each statement. Yet, there are common themes, including the recognition that "peacemaking" is a Christian responsibility, and that peace is linked with other issues including economic development, human rights and international institutions.

The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America inherited the concern for peace expressed in social statements of its predecessor bodies। In 1991, the Division for Church in Society appointed a Task Force to assist staff in the preparation of a social statement on international peace. The Task Force of fifteen included pastors, theologians, a biblical scholar, specialists in international relations, a four star general recently retired from the U.S. Army, peace advocates and others who provided a wide range of background and perspectives. This group published a study, Peace: God’s Gift. Our Task, in the Fall of 1993 and a first draft of the social statement in the spring of 1994. Both documents called for and received responses from individuals, congregations and other groups of the church. In the Fall of 1994, a series of hearings were held across the country to gain additional feedback in order to help shape the final proposal to be brought to the Churchwide Assembly in 1995. For Peace in God’s World was presented to voting members of the Assembly, and after discussion and amendment, was adopted by a vote of 803-30.

The central message of the statement is contained in the opening paragraph: "We of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America share with the Church of Jesus Christ in all times and places the calling to be peacemakers।" And then, "That calling is to proclaim the Gospel of God’s final peace and to work for earthly peace." The statement begins theologically, with the God of peace, and continues by affirming that the church is a community for peace. It explains a Lutheran understanding of the role of citizens and governments, including questions about the legitimacy of the use of military force. The study presents a multidimensional array of tasks for keeping, making and building international peace today. It concludes with a series of implementing resolutions.

Leaders of the study need to be familiar with the purposes of the statement। As an ELCA social statement, For Peace in God’s World is intended to offer theological and ethical perspectives to equip the ELCA and its members to fulfill their calling to serve God in the world. It is intended to guide staff, pastors, teachers and other lay persons in their response to issues of war and conflict among the nations and to the challenges of peacemaking.

The concern of this statement is our calling to be peacemakers in the international arena. Although, its focus is not the equally challenging tasks of peacemaking in our families or local communities, this guide offers opportunity for participants to connect the issues of global peace to personal and community concerns. You may want to consult the ELCA Church Council’s "Message on Community Violence," listed in the Resources section at the back of this guide. Note also that the statement is not a comprehensive Bible study on peace. Biblical references, however, are included in the statement, and the session plans do offer some opportunity for biblical reflection. Several excellent Bible studies on peace are listed in the Resources section.

Religion in a Secular Society: What Place or Role can Religion Have?
By Austin क्लीन

If secularism opposes the public support of religion or the presence of ecclesiastical authorities simultaneously exercising public authority, what role is left for religion in a secular society? Is religion doomed to a slow decline and attrition? Is it relegated to a web of quaint but unimportant cultural traditions? Such are the fears of opponents to secularism and secularization who argue that religion is too important to be eliminated in such a manner and blame atheists for their woes.
A word of caution is important here when it comes to terminology. One frequently hears or reads about secularists seeking the restriction of religion to "private" life and getting it out of "public" life — a position which gives people the impression that secularists don't want anyone ever talking about religion in public again. Although some secularists may harbor such feelings, this interpretation relies upon the fact that the public/private distinction has more than one meaning.
For secularists, they do not mean it in the same sense that a person's financial situation should remain private rather that becoming public knowledge. Instead, they are using "public" in the sense of "maintained for or used by the people or community." Thus, the desire to have religion removed from "public life" involves removing it not from public view but from public (read: government) support. The desire for religion to be made private involves not keeping it secret but keeping it a personal, voluntary endeavor.
We can see, then, that there is nothing about the process of secularization or a philosophy of secularism which requires the demise of religion. Secularists themselves are quite divided in their evaluations of religion and what role they think religion should have in society. Many are adamant in their belief that religion does more harm than good and they do hope that it will eventually disappear. Many others, however, are happy for it to retain a role in the social and moral lives of believers. Some secularists even support religious charities in their social efforts for the relief of poverty and suffering.
If religion withers in a secular society — and such a fate is entirely possible — the blame cannot be laid directly at the feet of secularism and secularization. They can only be held accountable for creating the conditions for the actual cause: people's disinterest in religion. In a non-secular society, people have little chance to ignore or get away from religion. Everywhere they go, either ecclesiastical authorities have some power over them or the principles of some particular religion are used as a basis to control their lives.
In a secular society, however, escape from domination by religion and religious leaders is possible. No one is beholden to any religious organization or religious values unless they specifically choose to be. If enough people choose not to be associated with religion, then religious organizations will decline due to decreases in income and membership.
Religious leaders are surely justified in lamenting such a possibility, but by opposing secularism and secularization, they make two errors. First, they place responsibility for such a predicament in the wrong place. Instead of attacking secularism for allowing people the chance to ignore religion, they should instead take a closer look at why they might be worth ignoring.
Second, any attempt to attack secularism essentially admits that they are unable to maintain people's interest and support on a purely individual, private, and voluntary basis. This may indeed be true, but it is a devastating thing to acknowledge — yet religious leaders who attack secularism don't seem to understand what it means. For some reason, they fail to realize that publicly supported and/or enforced religion is ultimately worthless. If they really believe that that is the only way that religion can survive, then they admit that religion itself is worthless — and that validates the secularist position that religion simply isn't necessary for the public good.