Baylor panel wrestles with issues of war and peace
Religion, borders and the plight of individuals dominated a Feb. 22 panel discussion at Baylor University on “Seeking Peace in Times of war: Hope or Hopelessness?”
In the wide-ranging discussion—hosted by the Keston Center for Religion, Politics and Society—panelists not only talked about the Russian invasion of Ukraine, but also war in the Middle East and armed conflict in several African nations.
‘Heresy’ of Holy Russia

Fulbright Scholar Vladimer Narsia, a professor of theology and director of the Canon Law Centre at Ilia State University in Georgia, pointed to the “decisive role” the Georgian Orthodox Church plays in his country and the “pressure” it feels from the Russian Orthodox Church.
He particularly noted what he called “the heresy” of the Holy Russia ideology of the Russian Orthodox Church’s hierarchy that fuels nationalism and militarism.
“Religion must be freed from politics. In that sense, religion can say something important to promote peace,” he said.

Russian expert Xenia Dennen, chair of the Keston Institute in the United Kingdom, said she is “deeply shocked” at the “Russian world” rhetoric of Patriarch Kirill of Moscow, the primate of the Russian Orthodox Church.
“It is a total travesty of the Christian faith,” she said.
However, she praised those Orthodox clergy who are promoting peace and courageously “are refusing to pray the prayer for Russian victory.” For example, a church court ruled Aleksiy Uminsky should be defrocked for refusing to recite publicly a prayer asking God to give Russia victory over Ukraine.
“There are a lot of people who are not supporting this war,” she said. “Kirill the patriarch does not represent the whole body of Orthodox believers.”
Many Protestants in Russia are “keeping their heads low,” being careful in their statements regarding the war, given the history of persecution they have endured, he noted.
However, Dennen commended Yuri Sipko, president of the Union of Evangelical Christians-Baptists in Russia from 2002 to 2010, for his courage in criticizing Russian aggression against Ukraine.

Governments sometimes use fear as a “useful tool” to maintain power and to mobilize citizens in opposition to an enemy or perceived enemy, said Joanne Held Cummings, a retired Foreign Service officer from the U.S. Department of State.
“The problem is that once it is done by a government, that fear tends to be self-perpetuating,” Cummings said. “It is very difficult to undo.”
George Njung, professor of African studies at Baylor, noted more than 100 million people around the globe have been displaced, and most were driven from their homes by violent conflict.
War as ‘fallout of state-making processes’

While it has not always been the case historically, today Africa and the Middle East lead the world in the number of displaced people, he reported.
Civil war, military coups and the continuing effects of centuries of colonial rule all contribute to destabilization and displacement, he noted.
“I think that the wars we have in the 21st century are a fallout of state-making processes and the issue of nationalism, which tends to be exclusive rather than inclusive,” Njung said.
Moderator David Smith, lecturer in the history department at Baylor, raised questions regarding nationalism, how borders are drawn and what their impact may be on bringing about conflict.
Njung expressed his belief that borders and the ways they have been created have “exacerbated” conflict.
“Borders create imaginary difference and issues,” he said.
Cummings noted colonial powers often drew borders with an eye toward creating weak national entities that would not present a challenge. However, she rejected the idea of natural borders.
“Except for countries that end at the edge of the sea, there are no natural borders. There just are none,” Cummings observed. “Borders are where people stop fighting, historically.”
Neither the Middle East nor Africa inherently is more warlike than Europe, said Cummings, director of Middle East Studies at Baylor. She pointed to centuries when war raged in Europe.
“We need to avoid looking at now as the only pattern that is,” she said.
Consider people ‘on the ground’
Smith mentioned the challenge of thinking about war holistically. He pointed to the difference in looking at armed conflict from the viewpoint of the state and from the viewpoint of people whose lives are affected directly by it.
“One can sort of approach war from either the state’s perspective or from the human perspective, and I don’t know anyone who is really fluent in doing both of those things,” Smith observed.
“There’s this notion that you can analyze war as something that states do in history. … Or you can step back and just look at the human cost and think: ‘These are not states that are bleeding and dying. These are human beings.’”
Rather than looking at issues of war and peace strictly in geopolitical terms, Cummings asked program participants to consider war and peace from the viewpoint of individuals.
“What do people feel on the ground? There are people who feel themselves to be at war when their countries are not. There are people who feel themselves to be at peace or relatively secure when their countries are at war,” Cummings said.
Consider the experiences of people, rather than focusing exclusively on the policies of states, she urged.
“On the ground, nothing is sustainable unless people feel their fears have been comprehended and have been mitigated,” Cummings said. “As long as people remain afraid, any sort of political resolution or military resolution is going to—in the long run—be unsuccessful.”
The idea came to Luther just before Thanksgiving in 1878. Determined to promote peace before their holiday feast, she and student Elli Moore Townsend tasked faculty and staff to mediate between squabbling students to get them to bury their differences and start anew.







