How can churches in Croatia and Serbia promote peace in societies torn apart by violence?

The problem – or what I find lacking

In this article, I would like to express how I feel about the churches in view of their peace efforts (peacemaking, nonviolence, anti-war initiatives), which, in my opinion, contribute to reducing violence in torn societies. I am mainly active in peace work in civil society peace organizations. The church as an institution is not involved in this area to a representative extent. There are always individuals who are motivated by their faith to work for peace. Unfortunately, neither the Catholic nor the Orthodox Church is recognized by society as a place for peace promotion. I am missing a clear strategy and visible practice of the churches in matters of forgiveness and reconciliation, which are particularly important after the last war (three decades ago).

Why is this the case? I will mention just a few possible reasons here. Peacemaking necessarily involves taking a critical stance toward one's own side, one's own community. This critical stance is hardly encouraged by the churches, but is often rejected as an attack on one's own people or one's own church. Church members, especially those employed by the church, need the courage not to remain silent. 

Secondly, what I see as an excessive concern for preserving national communities (Croats in Croatia, Serbs in Serbia) is one of the fundamental obstacles preventing churches as institutions from engaging in the ministry of reconciliation inspired by the Gospel. Reconciliation itself requires courage. That means taking a risk, viewing one's own position through the eyes of one's opponent or former enemy, and thus abandoning it in a certain way or for a certain period of time. And not only that. It is a risk to change without having any guarantee in advance as to what the final result of the change will look like. Specifically, that means facing the choice between reconciliation and defending one's own truth as a preservation of the national position. In situations where reconciliation work is lacking, it is probably because of preserving one's own national position took precedence. 

The problem for the churches, however, is that risk is inherent in faith: since Abraham, we have been in the tradition of risk, of leaving familiar ground with trust in God's promise. Risk is part of the courageous midwifery of Shifra and Puah, the faithfulness of Ruth, the acceptance of Mary, as a young, unmarried woman, to become the mother of God. And so throughout the history of faith, risk is a recurring theme. It makes faith alive and powerful. So why not take the risk of reconciliation? We have messages that supports us in this, and it is helpful as a basis for our peace work. I expect the church to remind me of the important messages of the Gospel. I am thinking of the Sermon on the Mount (Mt 5,3–7,27), or the commandment to love one's enemies. Throughout my life, I struggled to put these core messages into practice, to see if they are livable. What power lies in these encouragements! They are there so that we may act nonviolently in this spirit.

Which concepts of peace and reconciliation have proven themselves in recent decades?

As I mentioned, when it comes to peace work as a lived practice and as a theological concept, I find that a lot is lacking in our churches. However, hope is brought by individuals, as well as individual places/groups in both churches, who serve the cause of peace. In Croatia, I would like to mention several examples, such as the JRS (Jesuit Refugee Service), which takes care of the needs of refugees and migrant workers from Asia/Africa and works for their well-being. The Catholic Church in Croatia can learn from the experience of JRS how to develop its concept of peace. The concept consists of the following points: a) Recognizing current social tasks – recognizing the signs of the times. Migration and refugees are a current social task worldwide. b) In addressing this problem, what is needed is not an apologetic approach (retaining the old model of life) but a dialogical approach (a welcoming attitude) in the spirit of the Second Vatican Council. Humanity takes precedence over ethnic/national identity politics. c) This means that nonviolent politics develops from a welcoming attitude with feasible strategies, as Pope Francis wrote, with the goal of helping strangers to become friends; d) and raising our voices when it comes to the human rights of the disadvantaged or when nationalist excesses are masked/disguised in religious attire.

In Serbia, I see the constructive potential of the church among priests, laypeople, and bishops who have recognized that the greatest nonviolent resistance in Europe has a lot to do with Christian values. They support the protests against corruption publicly, enduring harm as a result, but also encouraging others in their determination. I hope that they strengthen many demonstrators spiritually. They bring their church closer to us, who view it from the outside, and make their tradition more understandable. I understand their criticism as a contribution to helping their own church, the Serbian Orthodox Church, in gaining relevance and significance so that it can be useful to today's society.

When we build peace, we praise God. With this in mind, the Initiative Belivers for Peace has been active in the region of Southeast Europe for two decades. Our last conference in Omiš in October this year brought together 60 participants (Catholics, Orthodox Christians, Muslims) from the region to discuss the question: How can spirituality, will, and courage for nonviolent resistance be lived in a time when wars are presented as a normal state of affairs? Believers for Peace work to bring about peace because they: a) recognize and nurture their commitment to peace and their responsibility for peace from their faith, and b) are aware of their own power. They strive to use this power as far as their influence reaches. They do not wait for instructions from their church representatives on what to do, but network with each other as people of faith, and c) see their own faith communities as part of the problem; violence is a phenomenon in the church, not just in society. However, they also know that addressing violence within their own ranks is also part of the solution, of liberation from violence. In this sense, criticism of one's own community is part of peacemaking. 

Finally, to summarize, I will read from the declaration of the conference in Omiš:

„Our faiths teach us to protect the persecuted, to make the stranger our neighbor, and to return good for evil.

We, the believers and the leaders of our Churches and religious communities, face a daily choice: whether to support the violence of the powerful — either openly or through silence in the face of injustice — or to resist it, remaining faithful to the principles of our faith and conscience. Resistance does not mean resorting to (new) violence and thus multiplying evil, but rather refusing to allow the vicious cycle to continue. Nonviolent resistance and nonviolent action demand from us courage, perseverance, and creativity. Even when they do not bring quick success, they bear profound spiritual witness.

Forgiveness, justice, and reconciliation are the essential preconditions for building peace for all believers. We wish to highlight that forgiveness aids in the healing of the entire community.“

Ana Raffai