Week two: peace

 The traditional theme - at least in the denominations I belong to - for the second week of Advent is Peace.

I like this one. As I said last week, I sometimes struggle with Hope and with Joy, but Peace is one I do enjoy. 

I define Peace as "right relationship." There are a lot of types of "peace as the world gives" that aren't really truly peace - think of how all the various nations that had been warring before they wound up under the boot of the Soviet Union had something that resembled peace in those years (and then, some, went back to fighting after the USSR dissolved in the late 80s). But that's not real peace - that's restriction under authoritarianism.

And there's also people - and I often fall into this category myself - who often accept less or put up with more than maybe they should have to - because we don't wish to "rock the boat" or we value the calm of other people being satisfied over our own satisfaction.

But true peace - the peace that the New Testament speaks of, the one that rarely occurs on this earth. Where everyone has what they need, everyone considers the other more than themselves, and there is that sort of general lion-lies-down-with-the-lamb. Also perhaps there are other elements of self control involved - like the big family who faced with an unexpected dinner guest, where everyone holds back a bit (even though their portions are never big in the best of times) so the guest can be served as well. Perhaps that sort of Heavenly peace only comes close on this earth through exercises of self-control on everyone's part. 

There's also perhaps a bit of an element of contentment with what you have, rather than striving for more, in having peace - look at all the unhappy extremely-wealthy people in this world, and they act out in that unhappiness in ways that make others unhappy as well. Perhaps also? If you have enough, sharing a little bit of it? Maybe that helps bring peace, at least to you - the knowledge that if you can't make things better, at least you're not making them worse?

I think there is something to be said, though, for, as much as one can manage, trying to live in peace with other people. I think in many cases this does mean keeping a bit more of governor over what you say and to whom.

I remember some years back reading a guideline, it was attributed to a Quaker group, about thinking before you speak. That you should ask yourself:

    1. Is it true? (I would also take this to include things that are unverified; some wild stories to circulate that later are shown not to be so)

    2. Is it kind? (Kind doesn't necessarily simply mean "nice;" sometimes hard truths have to be delivered, but they can be delivered in a loving way. And similarly: sometimes criticism DOESN'T need to be delivered; I know too many people who seem to be critical for the sake of being critical.)

    3. Is it necessary? (Does it HAVE to be said, does it HAVE to be said now, and especially: does it have to be said in front of other people).

Some sources I've seen add a fourth: "Does it improve upon the silence?" Sometimes not saying things is probably better than saying them. However, I think a lot of us have lost the habit of being able to be silent; we have to fill the time with speech. But it does seem an awful lot of what is said these days does not greatly improve upon the silence. 

I think, though, peace is something we all really do want, even if we might not openly acknowledge it to ourselves. To me, "peace" takes the form - as I said - of not seeing out drama or upset, trying to be kind in my dealings with others, and trying to make the world a better place inasmuch as I can. 

(Heh, now I am think how one could rewrite that old Conan "What is best in life" line to actually reflect the verse - I think it's from Micah - about "act justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with your God." To me that works better than the original; but then again, I'm not a barbarian)