It is easy to assume that all politics and pacification may be mutually exclusive. The truth is that there are many situations in which to maintain peace, politics can intervene or even get in the way. Where there is a dispute of unusual interests, whether for control, power or leadership, that is politics. God teaches us how “we must be” if we want to be his children. As human beings created by God we are called to be images of the Father. By doing so, we bring peace to ourselves and to others.

In many organizations, there are internal conflicts, and even key leaders begin to make their case and use politics in what they hope can bring peace or end what they believe is disturbing their peace. VPs will threaten other departments by flexing their control if those departments don’t do what they’re told. When we talk about politics, we talk about the policies and processes that are up for debate. These same policies dictate the path towards pacification as a social whole. But it is also important to remember that it also creates additional conflict within groups and therefore another opportunity for peacemaking. Take a look at what happened in Ireland in 1997.

“In August 1997, less than a month after the second ceasefire was established in Northern Ireland, thousands of Presbyterian pastors and lay leaders gathered in Belfast to make a historic public pledge of peace between Protestants and Roman Catholics.

Michael Cassidy, a South African evangelical influential in bringing about open elections and ending apartheid in South Africa, challenged them to a new level of personal responsibility for reconciliation and tolerance. At his invitation, nearly two-thirds of the 3,000 attendees rose to their feet to signal their commitment to peacemaking. Earlier this year, the Anglican Church of Ireland took similar steps when its general synod voted to condemn the presence of sectarian views within its denomination and to conduct an inquiry to determine how serious the problem is” (Morgan, 1997). .

Without the policy they would not have taken the extra steps to really figure out what the problem was and rededicate themselves to peace. But there are other examples where politics and peacemaking are not mutually exclusive. Let’s take the military as an example. Our leaders wage war on other countries that have different political views than ours. We are sent to war using force. And only as victors can we define what we believe to be peace. Whose war were we fighting? Whose definition of peace were we reaching for? Ours, the people, another nation?