Excerpt from "Chapter 1 How Do We Do Peace Theology? (J. Lawrence Burkholder)" in Essays on Peace Theology and Witness (edited by Willard M. Swartley, 1988)

p. 12

Peace theology is of the essence of theology. Peace is what theology is about because the Gospel is about peace.

Peace theology is orthodox theology with peace at the center.

I. A Profound View of the Fall of Human Beings and Creation

p. 15

Traditional orthodox views of sin and depravity should be seen as a corrective to rational optimism of the Enlightenment, utopian views of Marxism, naturalistic views of behaviorism, optimistic views of liberalism and simple volitional views of sectarianism. At the same time, it must be acknowledged that classical conceptions of depravity have been used historically as an excuse to justify conservative social structures, not to speak of entrenched power and war.

II. Messianic Hope for Restoration

p. 16

Central to the vision of the rule of God is the concept of peace. Shalom is a term with many applications. It is used to describe not only a process of conflict resolution in all areas of life, but an ultimate state of harmony and well¬ being within which the Spirit of God is in effective control of human relations.

III. Jesus Christ Prophet and 'King”

p. 17

A peace theology would be strongly christological.

p. 18

The key concept of Jesus' ethic is love. Agape love is noncalculating and indiscriminate. It extends even to the enemy. Love of friends is normal—even sinners love one another. The command to love enemies stood in opposition to dominant national strategies for the coming of the kingdom of God of Jesus' day. Although Jesus did not offer policies of national restoration based upon meticulous political calculations, his teachings and his own vocational styles lead to the conclusion that he taught shalom as a national goal and nonviolence as a means for his disciples.

p. 19

That Jesus was concerned about politics can no longer be doubted. Certainly, he was involved as a provocative critic and agitator. Clearly, he was considered a threat to the existing order. But since he was rejected, humiliated and crucified, we simply cannot know on the basis of Jesus' example how love and power could be combined unambiguously in the political realm, if, indeed, they can be.

This, however, is clear. When Jesus was confronted by hostile authorities, his response was nonviolent. Were his crucifixion seen in isolation from his life and ministry, one would be inclined to attribute his nonviolent responses to the hapless weakness of an individual in trouble with an autocratic power. But his response was interpreted by his disciples and, most certainly by the first century church, as a logical extension of his teachings. Hence, the cross should be seen not simply as an accident but as an express¬ ion of love for the enemy.

IV. The Church as a Community of Peace

p. 22

The church, as a peace community, would not claim to possess superior knowledge about worldly affairs, but it would have internalized perceptions, dispositions, sensitivities and values which would allow the community to discern the "spirit of the age."

V. Theology of Intentionality

p. 23

The point that would be made is that God's intention is to unite all peoples, nations, and things that are separated and are in a state of enmity. Reconciliation on a universal basis is the purpose of God and for that reason becomes the purpose of history.

Whether a theory of government would be considered within the doctrine of God or elsewhere would be a matter of choice. Suffice to say, government is one of the instrumentalities through which the world is being preserved while it is being redeemed. Government is essential to order. It helps to create the conditions of freedom through law within which life is possible.

p. 24

Differences between the church and government are confessional and functional. To put it briefly, the church consists of those who have freely confessed Christ and are organized as the "body of Christ," whereas the state consists of citizens who by virtue of natural dependencies of all kinds have entered into relatively fixed relationships defined by law and secured by power.

A peace theology would be particularly concerned to emphasize the necessity of government while denying government absolute authority and challenging ontological claims of apotheosis.

VI. Responsibility for the World

p. 27

There are, however, practical considerations which pacifists must face. When pacifists assume responsibility for the world, they are bound to experience moral conflicts with various degrees of seriousness. The world simply is not run on Christian principles. Hence compromise is inevitable. Questions therefore arise as to where to draw the line.

p. 28

A peace theology would acknowledge that it is difficult to draw direct lines between the Sermon on the Mount and political witness.

The possibilities of peace-making through witness is relatively unexplored. A peace theology would set forth ways by which peace witness could be carried out in an organized way on an international scale.

p. 29

A theology of peace would explore the possibility of political responsibility in the form of participation in government at many levels of involvement.

VII. The Claims of Universality

p. 31

The seemingly contradictory claims of separatist "perfectionism" and universal involvement should be worked at in the context of the discerning congregations. It is within the congregation that sincere Christians may find their callings within the dynamics of history. Without the counsel, encouragement, comfort, and forgiveness of the congregation, the disciple is left alone to suffer the tensions between love and power.

VIII. A Place for 'Natural Law"

p. 32

Suffice it to say, the value of the natural law tradition lies in the fact that it may illuminate what we are dealing with when we seek to order life within the secular realm. Its chief function is "indicative" rather than imperative. Much more would seem to be gained by approaching the natural realm functionally than by use of static concepts of natural law. After all, when we are dealing with nature we are dealing with a reality which is more flexible them the "orders" have presupposed.

It is particularly important for Christians to acknowledge justice as a fact of nature. Justice is a universal principle of fairness that facilitates human relations among and between all races, cultures, and nations. Even though nature in its fallen state stands over against grace, justice is a point of convergence. Justice is love generalized, structured and ordered.

IX. Hope for Cosmic Peace

p. 32

Clearly, a theme represented by the Pauline tradition is the hope for cosmic peace. In the age to come, love and power will be united unambiguously.

p. 33

However, until the world is transformed, love can be expressed unambiguously only in powerlessness.

A peace theology would frankly face the dilemmas of pacifism but would insist that in the "interim" between the advent of Christ and the consummation, compromises, of which there are many, would stop at the point of killing human beings. For to kill a human being is to remove him or her from the realm of repentance, renewal, and salvation.

Until the end, therefore, peace-making will not be without risk, contradictions, and disappointments. However, it is impelled by the conviction that the making of peace with justice is the meaning of existence.

The Roles of the United States in the Peace Process of the Korean Peninsula

Many Americans are now familiar with Korean culture. They watch the film Parasite, listen to the music of BTS, and enjoy Korean food such as Bulgogi, Galbi, and Bibimbap. Many teenagers in the United States are learning Taekwondo and studying Hangul and the Korean language. Furthermore, smartphones made by Samsung and cars made by Hyundai or Kia can be easily seen here in the United States.

In this manner, many Americans know and enjoy Korean culture much better than before, but there are still many cases where they do not know much about: Korea's geography and history. Currently, there are two separate countries on the Korean Peninsula: the Republic of Korea (ROK) and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK), separated by the armistice line.

It is not that the two countries existed separately on the Korean Peninsula from the beginning. Rather, on the Korean Peninsula, one united country has existed for a longer period at least since modern times. They spoke the same language, shared the same ethnicity, and enjoyed the same culture for a long time.

The reason that the Korean Peninsula was divided into two countries was due to the Japanese colonial rule of the Korean Peninsula and the Cold War that began immediately after World War II. Independence movements and armed struggles for independence from the Japanese colonial rule continued on the Korean Peninsula with a great deal of sacrifice, but the liberation and independence of the Korean Peninsula was achieved by the unconditional surrender of Japan to the Allied Powers in 1945.

After the end of World War II, Germany in Europe was divided into East and West with responsibility for the war, in Asia, whereas the Korean Peninsula and Vietnam were divided into North and South instead of Japan. At that time, the majority of Koreans opposed division, but the Cold War and the dynamics of international relations forced them to accept division along the 38th parallel. Furthermore, the Korean War, which began in 1950, not only caused numerous casualties and a total destruction of resources, but also further hardened and strengthened the division and the confrontation between the two Koreas.

About 40 years later, the Cold War led mainly by the United States and the Soviet Union came to an end due to the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Eastern European communist states. On the Korean Peninsula, however, the division of North and South Korea, a legacy of the Cold War, is still maintained, and the Korean Peninsula is still suffering a lot of sacrifice and enduring pain due to the division.

In particular, the Korean Peninsula is at a quasi-war state because a peace treaty to formally end the Korean War has not yet been reached. Such military instability on the Korean Peninsula not only threatens the security of the Korean Peninsula, but also poses a great threat to the stability of East Asia and world peace.

The surest way to eliminate military tension and maintain lasting peace on the Korean Peninsula is to achieve unification between two countries that share language, ethnicity, history, and culture. However, such unification cannot be achieved through war or coercion, so a very gradual and long-term process is required. Therefore, peace must be established on the Korean Peninsula before unification is achieved, and peace is an essential condition and method for achieving unification.

In the meantime, many efforts have been made to establish peace on the Korean Peninsula, but the most recent efforts for a complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and the establishment of a permanent peace regime, stable and lasting inter-Korean relations, the economic co-prosperity on the Korean Peninsula is the peace process initiative by the Moon Jae-in government of South Korea.

Recently, the United States has also made efforts to denuclearize the Korean Peninsula and establish a peace regime. In 2018, then-US President Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un held the first-ever US-DPRK summit and issued a joint statement in Singapore, and in 2019 they held the second US-DPRK summit in Hanoi, Vietnam. Unfortunately, no further progress has been made since then, due to differences of opinion and the COVID-19 pandemic.

Under such circumstances, what roles can the United States play in the future for peace and unification on the Korean Peninsula? The United States is still the world's most powerful country and can contribute to world peace through diplomacy, international cooperation, and humanitarian aid. In addition, since the security and economic prosperity of the United States are closely linked to the stability and prosperity of the international order, world peace is a matter directly related to the national interest of the United States.

Regarding peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula, first of all, the US government must resolve the North Korean nuclear issue in a diplomatic way through dialogue and negotiation. On the Korean Peninsula, even a local armed conflict can easily trigger an all-out war or an international war, so the idea of ​​resolving the North Korean nuclear issue using force must be abandoned.

Since the resolution of the North Korean nuclear issue and the establishment of a peace regime on the Korean Peninsula are two sides of the same coin, the resolution of the North Korean nuclear issue requires the declaration of an end to the Korean War, the easing or lifting of economic sanctions against North Korea, the conclusion of a peace treaty, and the normalization of US-DPRK relations. In this process, the US should work closely with its ally and partner, the South Korean government.

Ordinary Americans can also play an important role in promoting peace and reunification on the Korean Peninsula. You can support the Korean Peninsula Peace Act, the North American Family Reunion Act, and the North Korean Humanitarian Assistance Act, which are pending in the Congress, by sending letters or e-mails to the Senators and Representatives. You can also organize and participate in educational activities or peaceful demonstrations for the declaration of an end to the Korean War and the conclusion of a peace treaty. Only when the people of North and South Korea, Korean Americans, and peace-loving American citizens go together on the path for peace and reunification on the Korean Peninsula will the stability of the Korean Peninsula and world peace will come.

P.S. This article was published in The Road to Unification by the Orange County San Diego Chapter of the National Unification Advisory Council of the Republic of Korea.

The Biden Administration and Peace on the Korean Peninsula

 

Joe Biden was elected the 46^th president of the United States on November, 3, 2020, and the new Biden administration was subsequently launched on January 20, 2021. The Biden administration, which is expected to implement domestic and foreign policies that would be substantially different from the former Trump administration, is also expected to take a policy significantly distinct in relation to the Korean Peninsula issues.

In doing so, we look forward to establishing a more proactive Korean Peninsula peace policy from the Biden administration, both taking over the achievements and overcoming limitations of Trump’s “maximum pressure and engagement” policy and Obama’s “strategic patience” policy.

As a candidate, President Biden said, “With North Korea, I will empower our negotiators and jump-start a sustained, coordinated campaign with our allies and others, including China, to advance our shared objective of a denuclearized North Korea.”

In order to achieve the denuclearization and establish a peace regime on the Korean Peninsula, the most urgent task for stability and prosperity in Northeast Asia and for world peace, it is necessary for the Biden administration to closely cooperate with the South Korean government, a partner of the US-ROK alliance and the most concerned party to the Korean Peninsula issues.

It is also imperative that in order to achieve the denuclearization and a permanent peace on the Korean Peninsula, two most important diplomatic goals in the region, the two principles should always be kept: a diplomatic way through negotiations with Pyongyang, and a step-by-step, reciprocal solution based on action for action. In addition, the “denuclearization first” policy or CVID policy only based on sanctions and pressure, which the former administrations have tried in vain, should not be repeated.

The Biden administration has appointed key positions to deal with North Korea. Some of them argue that the denuclearization of North Korea is impossible or that the North Korean government is not a reliable negotiating partner, neither of which is far from the truth. If the nuclear negotiation process between the US and North Korea since the Clinton administration is closely examined, we can see that North Korea has been seriously engaged in negotiations with the US. In dealing with North Korea, President Biden with expertise in the field of diplomacy should keep this in mind.

In order to negotiate with North Korea, furthermore, it seems desirable to attempt a combined approach from above and from below as necessary. While the Trump administration's top-down approach had a lot of limitations, the bottom-up approach expected from the Biden administration may also have limitations in the initiatives and timing of resolving the North Korean nuclear issue. The two approaches are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

At the Eighth Congress of the Workers' Party of Korea held in January this year, North Korea insisted that in order to establish new US-North Korea relations, the US withdraw its hostile policy against North Korea, and said that it would face the US with the tit-for-tat strategy. In fact, North Korea's argument is not new and still expresses a willingness to talk with the United States.

North Korea's nuclear weapons were developed not to preemptively attack the US, but as a deterrent to alleviate the security anxiety of the North Korean regime after the end of the Cold War. With the end of the Cold War, the Soviet Union collapsed, and China established diplomatic relations with South Korea. On the other hand, the United States became the world's only superpower, and the gap in economic and military power between South Korea and North Korea began to widen enormously.

Time is not on our side. Even at this moment, North Korea's nuclear capabilities are increasing and becoming the most unstable factor in peace and prosperity on the Korean Peninsula and in Northeast Asia. The Biden administration should no longer waste time in the wishful thinking of the collapse of the North Korean regime in the foreseeable future. Instead, it should take as a starting point the principles and spirit of the Singapore Joint Statement agreed by President Trump and Chairman Kim Jong-un in 2018, where the two countries agreed on the establishment of new US-North Korea relations, a peace regime on the Korean Peninsula, and the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. The Biden administration should keep in mind that these three tasks are closely intwined and that the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and the establishment of a peace regime are two sides of the coin.

To facilitate peace on the Korean Peninsula, the Biden administration, in close consultation with the South Korean government, should suspend the US-ROK annual joint military exercises as a concrete step to create a peaceful atmosphere and build mutual trust on the Korean Peninsula, return wartime operational command to the government of the Republic of Korea, declare an end to the Korean War, and hold a summit meeting between the U.S. and North Korea as soon as possible.

President Biden will probably be very busy even now overcoming the COVID-19 pandemic and dealing with urgent domestic and foreign problems. However, the establishment of a peace regime on the Korean Peninsula is also an urgent task that cannot be postponed any longer. We hope that President Biden will show a new leadership for peace on the Korean Peninsula to the world.

P.S. This article was published in The Road to Unification by the Orange County San Diego Chapter of the National Unification Advisory Council of the Republic of Korea.

Five Myths about the Singapore U.S.-North Korea Summit Meeting

In the mass media, there are too many misconceptions about the U.S.-DPRK (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea or North Korea) Summit held on June 12 between President Donald Trump and Chairman Kim Jong Un in Singapore. What emerge are five myths about the summit, stemming from their inability to understand the summit’s significance fully.

The first myth is that the summit failed. But regarding the ultimate goals of denuclearization and peace on the Korean Peninsula, it is too early to tell. We are at the early stages of negotiations. Given the drumbeats of war in 2017, however, the summit is a success in diffusing tensions and initiating a new era of détente. Remember, the United States and North Korea have maintained mutual hostility for about 70 years and have been technically at war.

Some also argue that the summit failed because CVID (complete, verifiable, and irreversible denuclearization) is missing in the joint statement. However, as many experts point out, CVID undermines the sovereignty of North Korea. Their acceptance of CVID would be equivalent to an unconditional surrender, potentially making any denuclearization deal almost impossible. Success in any disarmament negotiations will require compromise and creativity.

The second myth is that North Korea has not yielded, whereas the United States has made too many concessions. But North Korea has already made many concessions. It promised "a complete denuclearization" to the United States, destroyed the Poongyeri nuclear test site, suspended nuclear and missile tests, released three imprisoned US citizens, and began the process of repatriating of the remains of the US soldiers killed during the Korean War. Meeting with Kim Jong Un is not about legitimating him or giving away the store but about building mutual trust for the hard work of building peace and denuclearization.

The third myth is that North Korea is an unreliable negotiating partner. The critics point to failures with past agreements. But a strong case can be made that both the U.S. and North Korea were responsible for the past failures. North Korea dithered and suspended cooperation. With the 1994 Agreed Framework, however, the United States failed to fulfill its pledge to build two light-water reactors and supply heavy oil on schedule. With the 2005 September 19 Joint Statement, the U.S. made additional demands related to special inspections and verification not in the original agreement.

The fourth myth is that the summit should have raised the issue of human rights in North Korea. It is possible to raise human rights issues, but we cannot solve all the problems of North Korea through one negotiation. The critical agenda today is the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. Besides, we must also recognize that peace and security are vital human rights on their own. With peace, human rights in North Korea will improve.

The fifth myth is that the declaration of Trump's suspension of US-ROK military exercises weakens the US-ROK alliance. But the suspension is the product of U.S.-ROK cooperation: South Korean President Moon Jae-in asked the United States to postpone the scheduled joint military exercises during the PyeongChang Winter Olympic Games, and the United States agreed. These paved the way to first the inter-Korean Summit and then the U.S.-DPRK Summit. By no means does it have to mean the weakening or destruction of the U.S.-ROK alliance. Rather, it can help make the ROK - US alliance stronger.

Taking all these into consideration, we must note that the Singapore U.S.-DPRK Summit is a historic breakthrough for the denuclearization and peace on the Korean Peninsula. A peaceful and prosperous Korea will undoubtedly improve U.S. security and increase world peace. Thus, no matter how much you hate Trump or disagree with his other policies, it is time for us to unite at least in supporting his peace initiative in Korea.

The KAPAC Statement for The Korean Peninsula Peace Process

The Korean American Public Action Committee (KAPAC) actively supports the U.S.-North Korea Joint Statement signed at the Singapore U.S.-DPRK (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea) Summit on June 12th between President Donald Trump and Chairman Kim Jong Un. We welcome the prospect of ending over 70 years of antagonism between the U.S. and North Korea. We firmly believe that this is the start of a new era of peace and prosperity on the Korean Peninsula.

The South and North Korean peace initiatives over the PyeongChang Winter Olympics led to the historic April 27 Inter-Korean Summit between ROK (Republic of Korea) and DPRK, producing the Panmunjom Declaration in which the two Koreas declared that there would be no more war on the Korean Peninsula. The United States and President Donald Trump generously welcomed and embraced this initiative by meeting with Chairman Kim Jong Un at the Singapore Summit. Through the June 12th Joint Statement, the U.S. and North Korea promised to work together to promote peace, prosperity, and security.

We support President Moon Jae-in's commitment to peace on the Korean Peninsula. We support Chairman Kim Jong Un’s will to improve inter-Korean and U.S.-DPRK relations. And we support President Donald Trump’s determination to achieve the peace and denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula through diplomacy. Their concerted efforts will create a permanent peace regime on the Korean Peninsula as well as in Northeast Asia, adding to world peace and prosperity.

The Korean American Public Action Committee (KAPAC) welcomes and supports the three leaders in this critical endeavor. We urge them to promptly implement the agreements to ensure and realize the vital goals. In this, we hope that the declaration of the end of the Korean War and the signing of a peace treaty take place as early as possible to lay the foundation for the subsequent building of a sustainable peace regime.

Finally, we also urge the South Korean National Assembly and the United States Congress to welcome and support such efforts for peace on the Korean Peninsula and the world in a bipartisan way. All KAPAC members, along with 2.5 million Korean Americans, support our leaders in achieving peace and prosperity on the Korean Peninsula.

July 7, 2018, Korean American Public Action Committee

The Statement for Peace Building on the Korean Peninsula

The PyeongChang 2018 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games have just begun as a global festival of peace.

President Moon Jae-in has invested tireless effort to make the Games a success. President Donald Trump's has graciously agreed to postpone the joint military exercise between the United States and the Republic of Korea. And Chairman Kim Jong-un has generously offered to a large delegation. All these indicate that the Games will be a success. It also has a potential bringing about lasting peace on the Korean Peninsula.

The resumption of dialogue and cultural exchanges are thawing the inter-Korean relations, frozen for a long time. Under the IOC's "Olympic Korean Peninsula Declaration," North Korea and South Korea have agreed to field a unified women's ice hockey team and to walk together as one under the Korean Unification Flag during the opening and closing ceremonies. All these herald a new era of inter-Korean reconciliation and cooperation.

However, above the aura of peace on the Korean Peninsula, there is a dark shadow of war. In his State of the Union address, President Donald Trump harshly called the North Korean government a "depraved" and "cruel" dictatorship and promised to “wage a campaign of maximum pressure" against the country. The United States continues to deploy additional strategic assets around the Korean Peninsula and Guam. All indicate that the Trump Administration is seriously considering a preventive military strike on North Korea.

We believe that would be a big mistake. Even a very limited military strike will most likely invite North Korea's retaliation. China will not stand idly without taking military action if North Korea is attacked by the United States. Combined with the unlikelihood of U.S. standing by and South Korea's Kill Chain, quick escalation to all-out war is the likely result. If a full-scale war breaks out, it could quickly and unavoidably expand into a nuclear war. The result may be that not only would the two Koreas be destroyed, but the global peace could be seriously threatened. Thus, we strongly oppose any form of military action on the Korean Peninsula by any party.

For the sake of peace on the Korean Peninsula, we demand:

First, President Moon Jae-in should play a bridge-building role in making every effort to improve inter-Korean relations while at the same time promoting U.S.-North Korea dialogue with the goal of denuclearization and construction of a peace regime on the Korean Peninsula. South Korea’s opposition parties and the conservative media should abandon their partisan efforts to disrupt inter-Korean reconciliation and instead strive for the success of the Games and peace on the Korean Peninsula.

Second, President Trump should immediately engage in dialogue with North Korea without condition. He must seriously consider halting the joint US-ROK military exercises in exchange for North Korea halting nuclear and missile tests. Also stopping the use of harsh words and war talk could add strong wind to the possibility of diplomatically resolving the North Korean nuclear issue without resorting to a destructive war.

Third, Chairman Kim Jong-un should do the same:  immediately cease nuclear and missile tests, actively strive to improve inter-Korean relations through inter-Korean dialogue and exchanges, and actively engage in talks with the United States for the construction of a peace regime on the Korean Peninsula free of nuclear weapons.

Thus, the United States, South Korea and North Korea should work together to build a peace on the Korean Peninsula. Freezing North Korea’s nuclear and missile tests and halting U.S.-ROK joint military exercises are two important bridging steps. We want peace, not war. The dark cloud of war must be replaced with a bright ray of hope and peace.

The KOREAN AMERICAN PUBLIC ACTION COMMITTEE (KAPAC)

P.S. This statement appears on New N Joy US.