Historically, the only way peace has ever been attained in the Middle East is by force. Empires since the dawn of time oppressed rebellion or conquest or protected trade routes through military tion.
The Iraq War is only the latest example of this cycle that is bound to continue (prophesied so) until all is revealed at the end of time.
Okay, so the world is the world, and it is what it is. The question for the Church, however, is not a problem of politcal peace but spiritual peace.
The gospel (NT included) is fairly unconcerned with political or national peace. On the contrary, it assumes conflict, war, oppression, and the like. The gospel is concerned with spiritual peace, though.
And as the people of God, supposedly saved by that same gospel, are we not to be embassadors of the reconciliation towards that peace? I would say yes. So, in the Middle East, how shall it be done? Well, we can be sure that military victory has never brought one person closer to God. It might have opened the way for some sort of missionary work, but physical force alone does not spread the gospel.
The bulk of the modern missionary movement understands this, so they concern themselves mainly with understanding the culture, learning the language, bridging the social gaps to better communicate the gospel with a given group. This has moderate success, but only in the missional effort to give sacrificially.
Much of the modern missionary movement is also designed to minimize or eliminate the very thing that will enable a move of God in the Middle East.
Martyrdom.
Just as political peace cannot be achieved without exerting physical force, spiritual peace will not happen until a people are willing to go over there and receive it.
“Wait a minute … are you saying that we should send people over there to die, to be martyrs?”
Yes and no. First of all, we son’t do the sending. God does the calling for true evangelism, and we have to understand that a generation, probably young and in the prime of their lives, will be raised up by God to preach the gospel at great personal risk to themselves. So no, we will not send them. They will be moved by eternal passion to go.
Secondly, we must not hinder them with our American ideas of safety and justice. They will be beaten, maimed, and killed. And they will do it with joy out of compassion for those souls in the Middle East and love for their Father in Heaven. They will realize, at some point, that their death will do more for the gospel of peace than another fifty years of their spiritual life on earth. And the world will not be worthy of them.
Christ was sent to die as sacrifice so that others might live. Is His Body to be exempt from that? I expect not.
As the bloody members pile up, Christ will be evident. Many will be saved from a violent, deceptive religion.
I heard someone say this week, in response to my statement about the need for martyrs, that he feels no responsibility to evangelize “those people.” “Just leave us alone and we’ll leave you alone,” he said.
Not to dissect all the fallacies of that argument, I will point out one thing: I’m glad God didn’t feel that way. Praise the Lord He chose to love His enemies (ME) enough to humble Himself, live among them, and suffer at their hands to show His love. It was the only way, as He found in the Garden.
How much are we willing to be like Him for the eternal destiny of many in the Middle East?
If we truly want to enact change in the Middle East, eternal change, we’d stop throwing soldiers at it and start sending martyrs.
Peace.