







































Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 6(3), Spring 2025  
 

Barton, From “Peaceful” to “Peaceable”…                                                                                                                   116 

 t 

From “Peaceful” to “Peaceable”:  

A Proposed Conceptual Shift for Interreligious 

Peacemaking 
 

John D. Barton 
 

 
 

In the twenty-first century, religious people continue to be both the perpetrators and targeted victims 

of violence. Given such realities, there is an urgent need to think clearly about the relationship between 

religion, violence, and peace. This article does so by focusing on one theoretical component of 

peacebuilding. I propose a conceptual shift away from the language of religious “peacefulness” and 

toward that of “peaceableness.” I contend that peacebuilding efforts are not well served by attempts 

to assess whether a religion is inherently peaceful or not, but by more modest acknowledgements that, 

despite mixed historical records, all major religions have peace-able resources that can be mobilized. 

In other words, beyond mere semantics, the shift from peaceful to peaceable is significant in the quest 

for theoretical coherence and effective practice of interreligious peacebuilding. I also use scripture to 

illustrate the specific compatibility of these ideas with the “risk and hope” of Christian peacemaking. 

 

“Peace, right now, feels like a fantasy born of a 

narcotic smoked in a pipe.” With that, Salman Rushdie 

(2023) captures an all-too-common sentiment in the 

current global environment. When it comes to pursuits 

of peace, optimism is in short supply. Moreover, given 

the steady stream of bad news and negative trends 

related to religion, things only seem worse when 

religion is involved. At the time of this writing, much 

attention is focused on the war in Gaza, in which 

religious narratives play a central role and feed fears of 

escalating conflicts across the Middle East and world. 

Other relevant scenarios include the historic schisms in 

Orthodox Christianity associated with the Russia-

Ukraine War as well as the religious elements in 

conflicts in Sudan, the Sahel, Myanmar, and Armenia-

Azerbaijan, among others.
1

 More broadly, the twenty-

first century is witness to alarming increases in 

religiously motivated and state-sponsored hostilities 

against religious minorities around the world. More 

than 90% of countries report harassment, intimidation, 

and violence against religious communities, which 

directly affects up to one-third of the world’s population 

(Pew Research Center 2020). In short, religious  

 

                                                        
1

 For more on these and other conflicts, see the International Crisis Group’s commentary on “10 Conflicts to Watch in 

2024” (Ero and Atwood 2024). 

 

peopleacross the planet continue to be both the victims 

and the perpetrators of hostility. 

In light of such realities, how should we assess, 

understand, and approach the task of interreligious 

peacemaking? Does it offer realistic opportunities for 

positive change? Such questions need to be addressed 

from multiple angles, but in this brief article, I limit 

myself to proposing a conceptual and linguistic shift in 

the discourse away from the language of religious 

“peacefulness” and toward that of “peaceableness.” 

More specifically, I contend that interreligious 

peacemaking efforts are not well served by attempts to 

assess whether religions are peaceful in the sense of 

being inherently peace-oriented. The efforts are better 

served by more modest acknowledgements that 

religions have a mixed record with regard to peace, but 

they nevertheless have distinct peaceable capacities and 

resources that, if mobilized, can make a major and 

positive impact on societies. In fact, while the shift from 

peaceful to peaceable may appear minor or merely 

semantic, I argue that it is a significant component in 

the quest for the theoretical coherence and effective 

practice of peacemaking in interreligious contexts. 



Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 6(3), Spring 2025  
 

Barton, From “Peaceful” to “Peaceable”…                                                                                                                   117 

To make this case, I explore the general 

relationship between religion, peace, and violence in 

the section, “Poison or Gift?”; I address some of the 

relevant conceptual issues related to interreligious 

peacemaking in the section, “The Problem with 

Peacefulness”; and I elaborate on some key theoretical 

notions in the sections, “On Truth and Truthfulness” 

and “On the Meaning of Peace.” I conclude by 

highlighting some implications for Christian 

peacemakers in the section, “The Risk and Hope of 

Christian Peacemaking.”  

 

Poison or Gift? On Religion, Violence and 

Peace  
Behind all discussions of interreligious 

peacemaking are issues pertaining to the relationship 

between religion, peace, and violence. One way to 

frame these issues is with the following question: Is the 
presence of religion in the world a poison or a gift? 

As one would expect, responses to such a question 

vary in both content and scope. Starting on the broader 

and more negative side, some critics deliver sweeping 

condemnations of human religion in general, as 

memorably captured in the late Christopher Hitchens’ 

(2007) claim that “religion poisons everything.” Such 

broad indictments typically reflect an idealized 

understanding of secularization that renders religious 

faith as little more than blind zeal. Accordingly, 

physicist Steven Weinberg opined that the “influence 

of religion has been awful” and that religion not only 

undermines rationality but also morally corrupts 

otherwise good people. In an address to the American 

Association for the Advancement of Science (1999), 

Weinberg famously asserts that, in a world without 

religion, one could expect good people to do good 

things and evil people to do evil things. But, he adds, 

“for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.” 

What is particularly relevant here is the characterization 

that the phenomenon of religion is inherently a barrier 

to anything positive, including, then, any prospects for 

constructive peace. In other words, the less religion, the 

more peaceful the world would be. 

Other critics narrow the focus and identify religious 

poison not with religion in general, but with specific 

traditions or religious clusters. For example, theorists 

such as Regina Schwartz, Jann Assmann, Ulrick Beck, 

and Jonathan Kirsch claim, in different ways, that the 

monotheistic religions—primarily Judaism, Christianity, 

and Islam—are inherently violent due to their 

exclusivism. Schwartz (1997, 63) is uncompromising: 

“Monotheism,” she writes, “abhors, reviles, rejects, and 

ejects whatever it defines as outside its compass.” Beck 

then contrasts monotheistic intolerance with what he 

sees as the more tolerant and inclusive characteristics of 

primal religions and polytheistic traditions (as cited in 

Meral 2018, 7–9). The clear implication is that the 

world would be better off with less monotheism and 

more polytheism.  

Other critics draw even more targeted and sharp 

distinctions between religions within the same religious 

clusters. One example of intramural polemics between 

Abrahamic traditions is captured in the book title, 

Religion of Peace? Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn’t 
(2007) by the Christian apologist and critic of Islam, 

Robert Spencer. In this case, the implication is that 

Christian/Muslim peacemaking is a non-starter because 

Islam is inherently intolerant and thus incompatible 

with peace.  

This is just a sampling, but claims like these are 

made in many different directions and across different 

traditions. One problem with such claims is that they 

rely on selective evidence to make universal 

assumptions about what is inherent to religions or to 

religion in general. Consider, for example, Beck’s claim 

that monotheistic religions are inherently violent while 

primal and polytheistic traditions are inherently 

tolerant. One of Beck’s celebrated examples of a 

tolerant and accommodating tradition is indigenous 

Japanese polytheism. Ironically, in order to make his 

case, Beck ignores the historical fact that Christianity 

was virtually wiped out in Japan in the seventeenth 

century through massive campaigns of torture and 

murder perpetrated by indigenous polytheistic 

communities (Meral 2018, 7–9). The point here, of 

course, is neither to deny legitimate examples of primal 

tolerance nor claim that primal and polytheistic 

traditions are themselves inherently violent. Rather, the 

point is that characterizing any religious tradition—

whether monotheistic, polytheistic, or non-theistic—as 

inevitably either violent or peaceful requires biased 

assumptions and selective evidence. 

Or consider Spencer’s indicting portrayal of Islam. 

In light of the challenges of modern Muslim extremism, 

it is common for commentators—whether Muslim 

apologists or critics of Islam—to debate whether Islam 

is inherently peaceful or violent. To make his case 

against Islam, Spencer selectively homes in on the most 

difficult and intolerant passages in the original Islamic 

sources (i.e., the Qur’an and early biographies of the 

prophet), links them to examples of hostility in Muslim 

societies as verifying evidence, and then universalizes 

the conclusion that Islam is an inherently violent faith. 

Interestingly, religion scholar Karen Armstrong uses 

the same original Islamic sources to make the opposite 

argument. While she does not ignore the difficult 

passages or histories, she focuses on passages that 

promote tolerance and peace as her lens through which 

to establish the inherent peacefulness of Islam (as cited 



Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 6(3), Spring 2025  
 

Barton, From “Peaceful” to “Peaceable”…                                                                                                                   118 

in Reynolds, 2012).
2

 All things considered, Armstrong’s 

approach is preferable to Spencer’s. She provides a 

more balanced and compelling assessment of both the 

peaceful and violent aspects of Islam (and Christianity) 

than what Spencer offers in his one-sided polemics. 

Nevertheless, any attempt to universally characterize 

any tradition as inherently peaceful or violent is 

problematic and often devolves into circular debates 

and polemic impasse. 

In addition to the assessments of presumed 

“neutral” scholars of religion, religious practitioners and 

“embedded” scholars also engage in critical discussions 

about religion, violence, and peace within their own 

traditions. Beyond the work of non-Muslims like 

Spencer and Armstrong, Islam has extensive traditions 

of discourse in which Muslim scholars critically engage 

the textual and historical challenges of their own 

religion. Many of these scholars seek to disrupt 

narratives of hostility and promote (or restore) Islam’s 

teachings of peace and freedom, as in Mustafa Akyol’s 

recent book, Reopening Muslim Minds: A Return to 
Reason, Freedom, and Tolerance (2021). 

Christians have also long wrestled with the 

dilemmas created by the juxtaposition of Christian 

teachings on universal love and peace with shameful 

legacies of violence and injustice perpetrated by 

Christians in history. Similar to their Muslim 

counterparts, Christians likewise have had to contend 

with the difficult and violent (even genocidal) passages 

in the Bible and how such passages are to be read in 

light of Jesus’ call to love one’s enemies and be 

peacemakers (Jenkins 2011; Boyd 2018). 

The respective theological, hermeneutical, and 

historical debates are beyond the scope of this article, 

but it is relevant to note that parallel processes occur 

across all major religious traditions. For example, in the 

volume Peacemaking and the Challenge of Violence in 
World Religions (Omar and Duffey 2015), these issues 

are addressed by practitioners of Islam, Christianity, 

Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Confucianism, and 

Native American spirituality. Not only do the authors 

dialogue with one another on the issues, each one also 

grapples with both the religious ideals and historical 

realities of their own tradition.  
In sum, it is problematic to assume that human 

religion, or any specific religious tradition, can be 

universally characterized as either peaceful or 
poisonous. Such either/or assumptions fail to account 

for the complex historical and hermeneutical realities. 

                                                        
2

 This contrast between Spencer and Armstrong draws on the work of Gabriel Said Reynolds (2012, 3–10). See also 

how Armstrong (2014) herself addresses the challenges of violence in Islam.  
3

 Using the contrasting ideas of “thick” and “thin” has been a practice in philosophy and the social sciences at least 

since Gilbert Ryle and Clifford Geertz, although scholars use the contrasts in a variety of ways. Volf (2013, 153) 

provides more detail on the history and the use of the terms.  

Moreover, the research clearly demonstrates that the 

dynamics between religion, violence, and peace are 

multidimensional and multidirectional. The same 

religions used to inspire and justify violence have also 

inspired and motivated heroic peacemaking, a reality 

indicative of what Scott Appleby describes as the 

“ambivalence of the sacred” (1999). In addition, there 

are also many non-religious variables that contribute to 

societal violence and even so-called “religious 

violence,” as demonstrated in provocatively titled books 

like William Cavanaugh’s The Myth of Religious 
Violence: Secular Ideology and the Roots of Modern 
Conflict (2009) and Ziya Meral’s How Violence Shapes 
Religion (2018). Religion scholar Stephen Prothero 

(2020, 7) concisely summarizes all this while 

highlighting the relevance of religious studies: “Critics 

who claim that religious people have perpetrated many 

of the world’s greatest horrors are, in my view, correct. 

Also correct are defenders of religion who claim that 

religious people have been some of the world’s greatest 

peacemakers. Put these two facts together and what do 

you get? A world in which religion matters.” 

Beyond acknowledging religion’s difficult sources 

and complex record, Christian theologian Miroslav 

Volf (2017, 76–79, 186–190) asserts also that religions 

offer the world an “indispensable gift” through their 

visions of human flourishing and moral frameworks for 

peace. Like others, Volf (2017, 76) acknowledges that 

religions often “malfunction” with disastrous 

consequences. When this happens, he says, “the gift 

turns into poison.” Nevertheless, the most powerful 

antidotes to religious poison are arguably found in 

religions themselves. Through the gift of their moral 

frameworks and visions of justice and peace, religions 

provide adherents unique resources to break their own 

cycles of violence, pursue inclusive justice, heal wounds, 

and—if we are to believe the Dalai Lama and Desmond 

Tutu (2016)—unleash joy. Volf (2017, 13) summarizes: 

“Religions are a global problem requiring sustained 

attention. But religions aren’t just a problem. They are 

also an indispensable part of the solution.”  

Volf also offers another helpful way to articulate 

these challenges and opportunities by introducing a 

critical distinction between “thin” and “thick” religion.
3

 

Religions become thin when they are “emptied of their 

moral visions,” reduced to “vague religiosity,” and 

especially when their institutions become entangled 

with political power (2017, 189). As such, thin religion 

is easily hijacked by political forces or, to borrow 



Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 6(3), Spring 2025  
 

Barton, From “Peaceful” to “Peaceable”…                                                                                                                   119 

language from social psychologist Jonathan Haidt 

(2013, 311–312), becomes a handmaiden to in-group 

agendas and sectarian interests. In fact, the thinning of 

religion is the single most significant factor that 

determines whether religions will be implicated in 

violence (Volf 2013, 40; Volf 2017, 189). 
Thick religion, on the other hand, leans into a 

tradition’s moral framework and originating vision, 

which is independent of any cultural, political, or 

imperial systems in which it operates.
4

 Among other 

things, thick religion provides powerful motivations and 

resources for intergroup peacemaking, genuine 

kindness, and altruistic concern for strangers and even 

enemies. As such, the peacemaking visions of thick 
religion are often subversive, since they resist becoming 

mere tools in the hands of the powers that be.  

We will build on these ideas in the next section, 

but for now we see that religion can take on both thin 

and thick characteristics, producing both poison and 

gift. One way to understand the task of interreligious 

peacemaking, therefore, is as an attempt to neutralize 

religious poison and mobilize religion’s thick gifts for 

peace. From this perspective, what the world needs is 

not less religion, but more religion—that is to say, more 

of religion’s thick bridge-building, malfunction-

disrupting, peace-generating gifts.  

We now turn our attention toward some relevant 

conceptual issues related to religion’s peace-generating 

gifts. 

 

The Problem with Peacefulness, and the 

Promise of Peaceableness 
Interreligious peacemaking starts with imagination. 

We must be able to imagine its possibility in order to 

pursue its actuality.
5

  

With that in mind, consider a potentially surprising 

claim: Interreligious peacemaking does not require 
religions to be peaceful. While this statement may 

sound counterintuitive, it actually points us in some 

helpful directions with regard to the possibilities of 

interreligious peacemaking. For one thing, embedded 

in the statement is a reminder that religious 

                                                        
4

 Volf (2017, 85, 189) makes this point especially with regard to the originating visions of the major religious traditions: 

“As I interpret them, world religions are cultural systems distinct from governments” and “all world religions were 

originally articulated, received, and practiced as just such ‘thick’ religions.”  
5

 This section draws on Barton (2022, 21–36). 
6

  For the concept of peaceableness, I broadly draw on Christian ethicist Stanley Hauerwas (1983). 
7

 In the United States, opponents of Islam increasingly claim that American Muslims do not qualify for the religious 

protections outlined in the U.S. Constitution because, presumably, “Islam is not a religion” but a political ideology 

opposed to American values. Similar logic is used to criminalize Christian minorities in other parts of the world, such 

as in some states in India where some authorities promote the idea that “Christianity has never been a religion” but 

only a form of “predatory imperialism.” In both contexts, these ideas and policies have often translated into 

harassment of Muslims and Christians, respectively (Uddin 2019).  

peacemaking does not happen between religions, but 

between religious people. In other words, peacemaking 

does not depend on peaceful institutions and traditions 

as much as peace-loving people. As such, rather than 

needing to establish the essential peacefulness of the 

represented religions in and of themselves, we only 

need to demonstrate that religions offer their peace-

loving adherents thick resources for the peacemaking 

task. This more modest focus on resources rather than 

essences now invites a fuller description of my 

proposed conceptual shift from “peacefulness” to 

“peaceableness.”
6

 While this shift in terminology is 

subtle, it reflects the significant difference between 

trying to assess a religion’s inherent nature with regard 

to peace (i.e., its peace-full-ness, or lack thereof) and 

emphasizing a religion’s peace-enabling capacities (i.e., 

its peace-able-ness or peace-able-izing potential). In 

short, replacing references to religious peacefulness 
with those of religious peaceableness avoids 

essentialism, better aligns with the nuanced 

understandings of peace and violence in religion 

outlined above, and opens more theoretical space for a 

peacemaking imagination. 

To get more specific, the development of a 

peacemaking imagination is undermined by essentialist 

and circular arguments that require a singular answer to 

questions such as the following: Is Islam essentially 
peaceful and tolerant, or merely political and 
theocratic? Is Christianity peaceful and loving, or 
intolerant and imperialistic? Is Hinduism universally 
inclusive and unifying, or hierarchical and 
ethnocentric? Is Buddhism essentially social and 

compassionate, or merely individualistic and escapist? 
7

 

Other traditions could be listed as well, but the point is 

that effective peacemaking is not dependent on Islam 

being peaceful, or Christianity being loving, or 

Hinduism being inclusive, or Buddhism being 

compassionate. Of course, adherents of each of these 

traditions will inevitably want to advocate for their 

tradition’s highest ideals, and offer explanations and 

perspectives on their historical malfunctions; there is 

certainly much more I could say about my own 

Christian faith in this regard. But for our purposes here, 



Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 6(3), Spring 2025  
 

Barton, From “Peaceful” to “Peaceable”…                                                                                                                   120 

effective interreligious peacemaking does not require 

religions to establish themselves in essentialist terms. As 

such, the language of peaceableness avoids the circular 

debates, and more modestly invites us to identify and 

mobilize resources that empower peacemakers. 

While religious peacemaking does not require 

peaceful religions per se, it does require the dual 

combination of peace-seeking adherents and peace-

able-izing resources. In terms of the latter, therefore, it 

is significant that peaceable capacities and peace-

activating principles are evident in the ethical visions of 

all major religious traditions. We can note, for example, 

the Jewish notion of chesed (steadfast love), the Muslim 

call to ta’leef (mutual love), the Christian imperative of 

agape (unconditional love), the Buddhist ideal of 

karuna (compassion), Jain commitments to ahimsā 
(comprehensive nonviolence), the Bantu notion of 

ubuntu (intersubjective concern), and close equivalents 

in Hinduism, Daoism, Confucianism, Sikhism, Native 

American spirituality, and other spiritual pathways. 

These concepts, as they emerge in different traditions, 

are not equivalent to one another, nor do they need to 

be. Despite different content and contexts, however, 

they collectively demonstrate enough ethical overlap to 

make thick religion and, in turn, reciprocal 

peacemaking imaginable.  

Similarly, such peace-able-izing ethical overlaps 

also manifest in what is known as “The Golden Rule.” 

Karen Armstrong (2006) demonstrates that the ethical 

visions of all major religious traditions feature versions 

of the Golden Rule, the principle that one should treat 

others as one wants to be treated. To make her point, 

she cites variations of the Golden Rule in 

Confucianism, Daoism, Hinduism, Jainism, 

Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Christianity, 

Islam, and other traditions. She especially highlights 

two of its most influential versions, that of Confucius 

from the Analects (“never impose on others what you 

would not choose for yourself”), and from Jesus in the 

Gospel of Matthew (“in everything, do to others what 

you would have them do to you”). For the purpose of 

this article, the claim is that the Golden Rule provides a 

common code of conduct across the world’s religions 

(Volf 2017, 117) that makes collaborative and mutually 

enriching peacemaking imaginable.  

Some critics, however, are not easily convinced. 

After all, they claim, even if the Golden Rule can be 

identified as a broad point of overlap between religions, 

                                                        
8

 Immanuel Kant (1998, n.12) famously critiqued the Golden Rule for its inability to attend to contextual and personal 

complexities. It has also been fashionable in recent decades in popular business literature to dismiss the Golden Rule 

because of its simplicity—“What if the other person doesn’t want what you would want?”—and replace it with the so-

called Platinum Rule—“Do unto others as ‘they’d’ like done unto them” (see, for example, Alessandra and O’Connor 

1998). The philosopher Kwame Appiah (2006, 60–63, 155–174) also critiques the Golden Rule along Kantian lines, 

but ultimately ends up endorsing its principles in the form of discerned and contextually appropriate “kindness to 

strangers,” which aligns with my point in this section. 

it offers little more than a soft and vague sentimentality 

that is too flimsy to anchor interreligious peacemaking. 

As such, the Golden Rule is mere fool’s gold, a candle 

flickering in the gale force winds of human hostility.
8

 
This critique, however, misses the deeper logic and 

power of the Golden Rule. When understood properly, 

there is nothing simple or soft or formulaic about the 

Golden Rule. In fact, it is best understood as a principle 

more than a rule, and a call to adaptive and context-

specific compassion that requires wisdom, empathy, 

and courage. Moreover, when put into practice—which 

is the real challenge the world faces—the Golden Rule 

has the kind of thick capacities that can infuse into every 

interaction a genuine concern for neighbors, strangers, 

and even enemies. In this sense, therefore, as a 

common code of conduct shared across different 

traditions, the Golden Rule represents thick peaceable 

capacities for compassion that make reciprocal 

interreligious peacemaking imaginable.  

In sum, interreligious peacemaking does not 

require grand arguments about the essential 

peacefulness of religions, but it does require peace-

seeking people who are motivated and empowered by 

peace-able-izing resources. And, in fact, such resources 

are found in a variety of forms across the ethical visions 

of the world’s religions. With all this in mind, we now 

turn to some relevant elaborations on a few key 

concepts.  

 

On Truth and Truthfulness 
I have argued that effective interreligious 

peacemaking does not require religions to be peaceful 

per se. Likewise, there is also a sense in which 

peacemaking does not require religions to be truthful. 

Like the former, this claim can sound counterintuitive 

and thus requires some explanation. 

Interreligious interactions reveal both the 

similarities and differences between religions. While 

some differences reflect merely superficial variations, 

others are more substantive, such as conflicting truth-

claims about matters of ultimate importance related to 

divine, human, and cosmic realities. Moreover, logically 

speaking, truth-claims that contradict one another 

cannot all be true. It stands to reason, therefore, that 

some religious truth-claims are more true (i.e., more 

aligned with reality) than others, and some religious 

worldviews are overall more truthful than others. Of 



Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 6(3), Spring 2025  
 

Barton, From “Peaceful” to “Peaceable”…                                                                                                                   121 

course, this immediately raises questions about how 

religious claims might best be compared and tested for 

consistency and accuracy. Such questions of religious 

truthfulness are beyond the scope of this article.
9

 

Nevertheless, here is the relevant point for this article: 

Interreligious peacemaking does not require religions 
to be equally truthful or for religious people to agree 
about ultimate realities. This is an important point of 

emphasis because peacemaking efforts have often been 

held captive by the misguided assumption that 

conflicting truth-claims inevitably breed intolerance and 

hostility and thus undermine peace efforts.
10

 As a result 

of such assumptions, peace activists have often felt the 

need to minimize or neutralize the differences between 

religions, or locate some foundational belief or 

underlying purpose on which all religions agree and on 

which peacemaking efforts can be built. 

For a notable example, Mahatma Gandhi (2013, 

51) famously suggested that interreligious peacemaking 

flows from a universal belief in and quest for God, 

which he described as the “cornerstone of all religions.” 

And yet, to our broader point, this immediately raises 

many classic philosophical questions that reveal 

conflicting and even irreconcilable truth-claims: What 

do we even mean by “God”? Is God to be understood 
as one or many, as personal or non-personal, as perfect 
or in process? Is God a heavenly parent, divine 
lawgiver, cosmic energy, ground of being, ultimate 
emptiness, or all or none of the above? Even within 

Gandhi’s own tradition, Hindus are all over the map on 

these issues, with some believing in one God, some in 

thousands of gods, and others having little interest in 

God at all.
11

 Similarly, the world’s Buddhists, Jains, 

Daoists, and indigenous practitioners represent a wide 

variety of nontheistic, polytheistic, pantheistic, and 

cosmotheistic worldviews. Even among monotheists, 

who agree on the mathematics of divinity (“God is 

One”), there is significant disagreement about how to 

understand that oneness. Should, for example, God’s 

oneness be understood as a kind of absolute unity, like 

in the Muslim doctrine of tawhid, or as a differentiated 

unity, like in the Christian doctrine of Trinity? (see Volf 

2011, 127–184). 

                                                        
9

 Theologian Harold Netland (1999) provides a classic Christian account of such matters, and Drew Collins (2021) 

explores a recent “refiguring” of the classic issues that seeks better engagement with a religiously diverse world. It is 

also relevant that unresolvable disagreements between religions do not imply total disagreement. As Volf rightly notes, 

“no world faith, even when it asserts its own exclusive superiority, can claim that all other faiths are entirely false” 

(2017, 250–51, n. 72). 
10

 For an extended discussion of this and other correlating myths, see Barton (2022, 123–142). 
11

 While Gandhi fluctuates between personal and impersonal expressions of pantheism, he typically favors personal 

images and shows himself to be especially devoted to the Hindu deity Rama (see Gier 2014; and Rambachan 2019, 

104–5).  
12

 See Volf 2017, 78. For succinct summaries of internal Buddhist debates about the self and related themes, see 

Damien Keown (2013, 56–58, 88).  

Conflicting truth-claims are also evident in rival 

understandings of the human self and subsequent cross-

purposes in different religious systems. For example, 

classic Vedantic Hinduism envisions humans as caught 

in cycles of rebirth (samsara) and seeks liberation 

through the union of the human self (atman) with 

ultimate reality (Brahman). By contrast, many Buddhist 

accounts envision the extinguishing of the self and its 

desires through enlightenment that leads to nirvana 
(literally “blowing out”). Meanwhile, mainstream 

Abrahamic religions typically reject ideas of 

reincarnation and offer a positive affirmation of the 

human self and its desires, seeking its proper fulfillment 

through submission to the will and design of the 

Creator.
12

  

Again, without getting lost in the theological weeds, 

the main point for our discussion is that these 

fundamental disagreements about divine and human 

realities, and the different religious goals that they 

spawn, do not necessarily undermine prospects of 

peacemaking. The importance and subtlety of this 

point can be emphasized by considering again the role 

that the Golden Rule plays across religions. Even 

though, as outlined above, the Golden Rule represents 

a “common code of conduct” shared across religions, 

that should not be understood to negate the different 

and even irreconcilable goals and truth-claims that also 

exist. Prothero (2011, 2) has been critical of Armstrong 

on this point, claiming that she is often guilty of trying 

to “erase” or “wish away” the differences between 

religions by collapsing them into the ethics of the 

Golden Rule. This, he notes, risks making theology the 

“water boy for morality.” But as we have seen, while the 

world’s traditions do converge when it comes to this 

ethical mandate, religions are about much more than 

ethics, and they in fact diverge sharply on doctrine, 

ritual, cosmology, experience, and law.  

Significantly, sharp religious divergences emerge 

even when considering motivations for Golden Rule 

compassion itself. While a Christian may extend 

Golden Rule compassion to others to obey the 

commands of Jesus and show gratitude for God’s own 

compassion, practitioners from other traditions may be 



Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 6(3), Spring 2025  
 

Barton, From “Peaceful” to “Peaceable”…                                                                                                                   122 

motivated for very different reasons. Some extend 

Golden Rule compassion to avoid or even purge bad 

karma so that they can escape cycles of rebirth; others 

“cultivate” Golden Rule compassion to allow a cosmic 

energy to flow unobstructed through one’s life and 

relationships; still others show Golden Rule 

compassion as a result of rational calculation and 

enlightened self-interest. But as dissonant and uneven 

as these motivations are, they can still generate mutual 

expressions of compassion and love that can disrupt 

hostilities and feed an imagination of peacemaking. 

In the end, this highlights a key theoretical anchor 

point for interreligious peacemaking: Different 
traditions can agree on peace-activating ethical norms, 
while disagreeing sharply on why those norms are the 

right norms.
13

 And that can be enough to identify and 

construct collaborative pathways toward peace, even 

across the most irreconcilable of differences.  

 

On the Meaning of Peace 
All this also invites some elaboration on the 

concept of peace itself. In this article, I have used the 

term peace and its derivatives (i.e., peaceful, 

peacemaking, peaceable) without directly addressing its 

meaning. While a comprehensive exploration is 

beyond our scope, we can still briefly address the 

question: What do we mean by peace? 
14

  
When we consider peace in the ultimate sense, we 

again encounter conflicting truth-claims. The notion of 

peace is used in divergent and often incommensurable 

ways by different religious traditions. Is peace an ego-
renouncing internal bliss? A God-given pathway to 
world order? Reconciliation with God and each other? 

A restored primordial harmony between land and 
ancestors? Or is it a mix of all of these, or something 
altogether different? These are significant questions 

that demand more attention. But this article primarily 

considers peace in the more ordinary and down-to-

earth sense of social well-being. Significantly, all 

religions incorporate some version of this ordinary 

sense into their more ultimate and cosmic visions.  

But peacemaking and social wellbeing—even in the 

ordinary sense—are not about mere tolerance or simply 

helping different communities get along better. 

Tolerance is, of course, important and, in some cases, 

                                                        
13

 Here I draw on Charles Taylor (2011, 105).  
14

 This section draws on Barton (2022, 49–53). 
15

 The contrast between negative and positive peace has been common in peace studies since the 1960s. While the 

concepts are not intended to be pitted against one another, a certain priority is given to positive peace. In other words, 

while negative peace is important and sometimes even urgent (the containment of open violence sometimes must take 

precedence), it is embedded within the larger goals of positive peace and human flourishing. When those larger goals 

are neglected, “peace” ends up being reduced to mere security issues or crisis management or, at best, signed truces 

and peace agreements. Johan Galtung (1969; 1985) is especially associated with the classic formulation of these terms 

and ideas. 

a critical first step. But the bigger aim of interreligious 

peacemaking is not cold tolerance as much as active 
collaboration for mutual flourishing. Put differently, 

interreligious peacemaking is not simply about 

neutralizing hostilities, but creating equitable 

opportunities for flourishing. 

A focus on mutual flourishing also reiterates and 

expands the earlier point about the relevance of religion 

in the world today. To illustrate this, it has often been 

assumed that the big challenges of the twenty-first 

century—including progressive ecological devastation, 

aggressive nationalisms, ever-widening discrepancies of 

power and wealth, the global mental health crisis, and 

others—can be diagnosed and addressed without 

significant reference to religion. This is an assumption 

that scholars call “secular myopia.” Appleby (2014) 

highlights a stark example of secular myopia when he 

notes that religion is mentioned in passing only once in 

the 750-page history of the World Bank and its work at 

the forefront of international development and poverty 

reduction. The clear implication is that religion has little 

or nothing constructive to offer when addressing the 

world’s major problems. Such short-sighted postures 

have been standard in development circles for decades. 

But as we have seen, scholars like Appleby (1999), Volf 

(2017), Katherine Marshall (2013), and a growing 

chorus of others now demonstrate that secular myopia 

not only fails to adequately address the challenges that 

religion presents in the world today, but also overlooks 

the multiple resources and contributions religions can 

make toward sustainable solutions. 

Such an acknowledgement also allows us to clarify 

different aspects of peacemaking and the various terms 

that describe them. For example, it is increasingly noted 

that interreligious peacemaking does not simply pursue 

what peace theorists call “negative peace” (i.e., the 

absence of violent conflict between religious 

communities), but also “positive peace” (i.e., the 

presence of harmony and mutual flourishing).
15

 This 

distinction also highlights the differences between 

“peacekeeping” (i.e., protecting against the emergence 

of open hostilities) and “peacemaking” (i.e., working for 

ecosystems of equitable flourishing), and between 

“disruptive peacemaking” (i.e., breaking cycles of 

hostility) and “constructive peacemaking” (i.e., active 



Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 6(3), Spring 2025  
 

Barton, From “Peaceful” to “Peaceable”…                                                                                                                   123 

collaborations for  mutual benefit).
16

 These distinctions 

and nuances also demonstrate the fact that peace, in its 

positive sense, cannot be understood apart from justice, 

and vice versa. This is captured in Susan 

Thistlethwaite’s (2012) description of “interfaith just 

peacemaking” and by the blended term “justpeace,” 

which is becoming increasingly common in peace 

studies (Lederach and Appleby 2010, 24).  

In the end, anyone who wishes to understand the 

world and address issues related to societal wellbeing 

must take religion seriously both in terms of its 

challenges and its peaceable contributions. 

 

Conclusion: The Risk and Hope of Christian 

Peacemaking  
Given the context of this article and journal, I 

conclude by offering reflections on a few Christian 

anchor points for this discussion. 

When it comes to interreligious peacemaking, 

there are two misguided postures that sometimes have 

currency in Christian circles. On the one hand, some 

equate peacemaking and interreligious cooperation 

with religious compromise and even spiritual weakness. 

Relatedly, others assume that peacemaking is 

incompatible with the exclusive claims of the faith or, at 

least, that peacemaking efforts should take a back seat 

to mission efforts such as proselytization. Both of these 

postures, I argue, are caricatures of a Christian vision of 

peacemaking. 

For one thing, the idea that peacemaking reflects 

spiritual weakness does not square with the overall 

vision of discipleship and sacrificial love found in the 

pages of the New Testament. Take, for example, Jesus’ 

teaching in the Sermon on the Mount that includes him 

saying, “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be 

called children of God” (Matthew 5:9). Even a quick 

perusal of Jesus’ teachings in this sermon clearly shows 

that peacemaking is not understood as something soft 

and passive, but is part of the radical and demanding 

call of discipleship. We can also consider the way the 

Apostle Paul links “spiritual fervor” and “zeal” with 

attempts to “live at peace with everyone” (Romans 

12:11, 18), or how the author of Hebrews links holiness 

with making “every effort to live in peace with 

everyone” (Hebrews 12:14). From these and many 

other passages, it is clear that the peacemaking 

envisioned in the New Testament is central to 

discipleship and linked to spiritual vitality and courage, 

not weakness and compromise. 

On the other hand, even Christians who embrace 

peacemaking as part of discipleship often resist notions 

of exclusivity and judgment, assuming they are 

incompatible with the call to kindness, hospitality, and 

                                                        
16

 See Barton (2022, 49–52, 139–140). 

inclusivity. Jesus, however, does not seem to resist 

defining his work and the Christian Gospel in exclusive 

terms. The pertinent question, however, has to do with 

the content and parameters of Gospel exclusivism. 

Much could be said here, but the relevant point is 

demonstrated in a passage from the Gospel of Luke 

when Jesus sends his followers out into various towns 

and villages with a mission: 

“I am sending you out like lambs into the midst of 

wolves… Whatever house you enter, first say, ‘Peace to 

this house!’ And if anyone is there who shares in peace, 

your peace will rest on that person; but if not, it will 

return to you… But whenever you enter a town and they 

do not welcome you, go out into its streets and say, 

‘Even the dust of your town that clings to our feet, we 

wipe off in protest against you’” (Luke 10:5–6, 10–11).  

I can note three things here. First, Jesus clearly 

does not shy away from using exclusive and judgmental 

language in this passage, but his exclusivism is not based 

on things typically associated with religious exclusivism 

today. For example, this exclusivism is not based on 

people’s religious standing or identity, or agreement on 

specific theological claims, or commitment to specific 

political causes of the day. Rather, the exclusivism of 

Jesus is specifically based on people’s willingness to 
embrace his radical mission of peace. In other words, 

at least in this passage, peacemaking is the Gospel 

litmus test. 

Second, this mission of peace is not for the faint of 

heart; it involves risk and requires courage. Part of this 

is due to the fact that, in this violent and hostile world, 

peacemakers often feel like lambs among wolves. As 

such, peacemaking always carries the potential for 

rejection and opposition. This is part of the logic of 

Paul’s encouragement in Romans: “If it is possible, as 
far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone” 

(Romans 12:18, emphasis added). In short, while the 

peaceable call of Jesus is unequivocal, there is no 

guarantee that it will work, at least in the short term. For 

this reason, peacemaking requires not only courage, but 

a trusting faith that God will use our work in ways that 

we may not immediately see.  

Third and finally, while there are no short-term 

guarantees of success, Jesus clearly believes that sending 

out his small band of Galilean peacemakers, like lambs 

among wolves, opens the possibilities of kingdom 

hospitality, healing, and the defeat of Satan (Luke 10:8–

9, 18). In other words, peacemaking is a powerful force 

in the world. It is not mere wishful thinking but is 

anchored in faith and hope even when, and maybe 

especially when, success seems unlikely and optimism 



Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 6(3), Spring 2025  
 

Barton, From “Peaceful” to “Peaceable”…                                                                                                                   124 

is in short supply.
17

 And actually, while the task is often 

daunting, extensive research now demonstrates that 

small-scale nonviolent peacemaking campaigns by 

ordinary citizens are more likely to bring about large-

scale societal changes than armed conflicts or the work 

of elite political actors.
18

 In other words, research shows 

what Jesus knew all along: humble grassroots efforts for 

peace, against all seeming odds, can change the world.  

To end where we started, Salman Rushdie is 

certainly right that peace feels like a pipedream in 

today’s world (“a fantasy born of a narcotic smoked in 

a pipe”) (2023). But faith and hope call Christians to 

extend peace anyway, radically and impartially, and to 

be ready to collaborate with all peaceable people, 

trusting God to steer all good efforts toward divine 

completion (Philippians 1:6).  

 

References 

 
Akyol, Mustafa. 2021. Reopening Muslim Minds: A 

Return to Reason, Freedom, and Tolerance. New 

York: St. Martin’s Press. 

Alessandra, Tony, and Michael J. O’Connor. 1998. 

The Platinum Rule: Discover the Four Basic 
Business Personalities and How They Can Lead 
You to Success. New York: Grand Central 

Publishing. 

Appiah, Kwame Anthony. 2006. Cosmopolitanism: 
Ethics in a World of Strangers. New York: Norton. 

Appleby, Scott. 1999. The Ambivalence of the Sacred: 
Religion, Violence, and Reconciliation. Lanham: 

Rowman and Littlefield. 

———. 2014. “Religion and Peacebuilding: The 

Necessary Art of Specialization.” University of 
California Television (UCTV). 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uf51nK2El0I 

Armstrong, Karen. 2006. The Great Transformation: 
The Beginning of Our Religious Traditions. New 

York: Anchor Books. 

———. 2014. Fields of Blood: Religion and the History 
of Violence. New York: Knopf.  

Assmann, Jan. 2010. The Price of Monotheism. 

Translated by Robert Savage. Stanford: Stanford 

University Press. 

Barton, John D. 2022. Better Religion: A Primer for 
Interreligious Peacebuilding. Waco: Baylor 

University Press. 

                                                        
17

 This implies that hope and optimism are not the same thing. According to Christian theologian Jürgen Moltmann, 

optimism is what we project onto the future based on our own assessments of facts and how well things are going, while 

hope draws on forces beyond human sight and the calculation of facts. See Moltmann (1991; 1996).  
18

 Based on decades of longitudinal research across multiple contexts and situations, political scientists Erica 

Chenoweth and Maria Stephan demonstrate that a small percentage of a population—around 3.5 percent—active in 

grassroots peacemaking efforts are twice as likely to bring about large societal changes than are military and 

government efforts. See Barton (2022, 9).  

 

Boyd, Gregory A. 2018. Cross Vision: How the 
Crucifixion of Jesus Makes Sense of Old 
Testament Violence. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. 

Cavanaugh, William T. 2009. The Myth of Religious 

Violence: Secular Ideology and the Roots of 
Modern Conflict. New York: Oxford University 

Press. 

Collins, Drew. 2021. The Unique and Universal 
Christ: Refiguring the Theology of Religions. 
Waco: Baylor University Press. 

Dalai Lama and Desmond Tutu (with Douglas 

Carlton Abrams). 2016. The Book of Joy: Lasting 
Happiness in a Changing World. New York: 

Avery. 

Ero, Comfort, and Richard Atwood. 2024. “10 

Conflicts to Watch in 2024.” International Crisis 
Group. https://www.crisisgroup.org/global/10-

conflicts-watch-2024 

Galtung, Johan. 1969. “Violence, Peace, and Peace 

Research.” Journal of Peace Research 6 (3): 167–

91. 

———. 1985. “Twenty-Five Years of Peace Research: 

Ten Challenges and Some Responses.” Journal of 

Peace Research 22 (2): 141–58. 

Gandhi, Mohandas K. 2013. All Men Are Brothers. 
London: Bloomsbury Publishing.  

Gier, Nicholas F. 2014. “Gandhi, Deep Religious 

Pluralism, and Multiculturalism.” Philosophy East 
and West 64 (2): 325–29. 

Haidt, Jonathan. 2013. The Righteous Mind: Why 
Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion. 

New York: Vintage Books. 

Hauerwas, Stanley. 1983. The Peaceable Kingdom: A 

Primer in Christian Ethics. Notre Dame: 

University of Notre Dame Press. 

Hitchens, Christopher. 2007. God Is Not Great: How 
Religion Poisons Everything. New York: Twelve. 

Jenkins, Philip. 2011. Laying Down the Sword: Why 
We Can’t Ignore the Bible’s Violent Verses. New 

York: HarperOne. 

Kant, Immanuel. 1998. Groundwork of the 
Metaphysics of Morals. Cambridge: Cambridge 

University Press. 

Keown, Damien. 2013. Buddhism: A Very Short 
Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uf51nK2El0I
https://www.crisisgroup.org/global/10-conflicts-watch-2024
https://www.crisisgroup.org/global/10-conflicts-watch-2024


Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 6(3), Spring 2025  
 

Barton, From “Peaceful” to “Peaceable”…                                                                                                                   125 

Lederach, John Paul, and R. Scott Appleby. 2010. 

“Strategic Peacebuilding: An Overview.” In 

Strategies of Peace: Transforming Conflict in a 
Violent World. Edited by Daniel Philpott and 

Gerard E. Powers, 19–44. New York: Oxford 

University Press. 

Marshall, Katherine. 2013. Global Institutions of 
Religion: Ancient Movers, Modern Shakers. 
London: Routledge. 

Meral, Ziya. 2018. How Violence Shapes Religion: 
Belief and Conflict in the Middle East and Africa. 

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 

Moltmann, Jürgen. 1991. Theology of Hope: On the 
Ground and the Implications of a Christian 
Eschatology. Translated by Margaret Kohl. San 

Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco. 

———. 1996. The Coming of God: On Christian 
Eschatology. Translated by Margaret Kohl. 

Minneapolis: Fortress Press.  

Netland, Harold A. 1999. Dissonant Voices: Religious 
Pluralism and the Question of Truth. Vancouver: 

Regent College Publishing. 

Omar, Irfan A., and Michael K. Duffey, eds. 2015. 

Peacemaking and the Challenge of Violence in 

World Religions. Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell. 

Pew Research Center. 2020. “Harassment of Religious 

Groups Continues to be Reported in More than 

90% of Countries.” Pew Research Center. 
https://www.pewforum.org/2020/11/10/harassment-

of-religious-groups-continues-to-be-reported-in-

more-than-90-of-countries/ 

Prothero, Stephen. 2011. God Is Not One: The Eight 
Rival Religions That Run the World. New York: 

HarperOne. 

———. 2020. Religion Matters: An Introduction to the 
World’s Religions. New York: Norton. 

Rambachan, Anantanand. 2019. Essays in Hindu 
Theology. Minneapolis: Fortress. 

Reynolds, Gabriel Said. 2012. The Emergence of 
Islam: Classical Traditions in Contemporary 
Perspective. Minneapolis: Fortress. 

Rushdie, Salman. 2023 (October 31). “If Peace Were 

a Prize: The World of Fable Teaches Us That 

Even Our Most Precious Values Are Contingent, 

or Won at Great Cost.” The New Yorker. 
https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-

comment/if-peace-were-a-prize  

Schwartz, Regina. 1997. The Curse of Cain: The 
Violent Legacy of Monotheism. Chicago: 

University of Chicago Press. 

Spencer, Robert. 2007. Religion of Peace? Why 
Christianity Is and Islam Isn’t. New York: Regnery 

Publishing. 

 

 

Taylor, Charles. 2011. “Conditions of an Unforced 

Consensus on Human Rights.” In Dilemmas and 
Connections: Selected Essays, 105–123. 

Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University 

Press. 

Thistlethwaite, Susan Brooks, ed. 2012. Interfaith Just 
Peacemaking: Jewish, Christian, and Muslim 
Perspectives on the New Paradigm of Peace and 
War. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 

Uddin, Asma. 2019. When Islam Is Not a Religion. 

New York: London Pegasus Books. 

Volf, Miroslav. 2011. Allah: A Christian Response. 

New York: HarperOne. 

———. 2013. A Public Faith: How Followers of Christ 
Should Serve the Common Good. Grand Rapids: 

Brazos. 

———. 2017. Flourishing: Why We Need Religion in a 
Globalized World. New Haven: Yale University 

Press. 

Weinberg, Steven. 1999 (October 21). "A Designer 

Universe?" New York Review of Books 46: 46-48. 
https://rtraba.com/wp-

content/uploads/2014/09/adesigneruniverse-

weinberg.pdf  
 

 

John D. Barton is director of the Center for Faith and 

Learning at Pepperdine University, where he also 

teaches in the Religion and Philosophy division. He is 

the author of Better Religion: A Primer for 
Interreligious Peacebuilding (Baylor University Press, 

2022).  

 

Author email: john.barton@pepperdine.edu 
 

 
 

https://www.pewforum.org/2020/11/10/harassment-of-religious-groups-continues-to-be-reported-in-more-than-90-of-countries/
https://www.pewforum.org/2020/11/10/harassment-of-religious-groups-continues-to-be-reported-in-more-than-90-of-countries/
https://www.pewforum.org/2020/11/10/harassment-of-religious-groups-continues-to-be-reported-in-more-than-90-of-countries/
https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/if-peace-were-a-prize
https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/if-peace-were-a-prize
https://rtraba.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/adesigneruniverse-weinberg.pdf
https://rtraba.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/adesigneruniverse-weinberg.pdf
https://rtraba.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/adesigneruniverse-weinberg.pdf
mailto:john.barton@pepperdine.edu

