Peace on Earth Spring 07 Articles 

The following articles appeared in the Spring 2007 issue of Peace on Earth.COMPETITION OR COMMUNITY? A STORY OF PEACEMAKING IN PAPUA NEW GUINEA

by Molly Routson, Assistant to the Director of International Ministries

Who gets the building when a church splits?  What if it wasn’t their building to begin with — who has the right to continue using the facility?  Two churches in Papua New Guinea recently faced this very dilemma, and the pastors were gridlocked in conflict as they tried to protect their congregations’ rights to the building.  But with the help of peacemaker Mick Bandy, these pastors learned to channel their leadership energies toward a peaceful solution that would model God’s reconciling power for their congregations and their community.

When Pastor Paul and more than half of the congregation of the Papua New Guinea Bible Church broke off to form a new church, they wished to continue holding their services in the community’s meetinghouse. However, their plans for using the hall competed with Pastor Michael and the original congregation’s plans for the same space. Eventually, their disagreements became so heated that they erupted into verbal and physical violence, and the frustrated village leaders closed the meetinghouse completely.

Both sides recognized the damaging impact that their conflict was having on their Christian witness and on their own congregations, but they had reached a point where neither wanted to concede to the other.  And so the meetinghouse remained closed until missionary Mick Bandy offered to try to help them work out an agreement.

Although Paul and Michael were the leaders and spokesmen for their churches, Mick recognized that they were not the only individuals involved in the conflict – in fact, this was a conflict between churches! So, Mick appealed to both pastors in terms of their responsibility as shepherds; he asked them to lead as peacemakers, so that they could lead their flocks through reconciliation of the conflict over the meetinghouse.

“They appeared to be acting more as advocates for their congregations, not unlike attorneys representing their ‘clients’ in an adversarial court case…. I felt the best way to approach the issue was to appeal to them as pastors and peacemakers, affirming them as shepherds of their respective flocks and encouraging them to work together, as God’s ambassadors, to solve the issues.”

When the pastors and several other leaders from each church came together for a face-to-face meeting, Mick wanted to make sure that each person had the opportunity to tell his story. This was particularly important because storytelling is highly valued in Papua New Guinean culture. Mick also felt that it was important for the church leaders to know that they were responsible for this process — he wasn’t there to make a decision for them, but to help them find ways to glorify God and to look out for the interests of others (Phil. 2:3-4), even in the midst of conflict.

With this in mind, the group evaluated the situation and searched for potential ways to resolve the property dispute. Even though the two sides initially disagreed about how to use the meetinghouse, they did agree on one crucial thing: “The fact that the village leaders had been forced to close the meetinghouse because two churches were fighting over it was a bad witness and not pleasing to God,” said Mick.

As the meeting proceeded, Mick and the church leaders wondered if there was a way for both churches to use the meetinghouse. They eventually settled on a schedule that allows each church to hold services in the meetinghouse until the congregations are able to construct their own permanent church buildings.

Even more importantly, they agreed to stop the fighting between churches and families in the village, so that the community will again have two strong churches and their community meetinghouse. As the day progressed, the tension between Michael, Paul, and the elders seemed to melt away; they even discussed the possibility of having occasional joint worship services!

These church leaders closed the meeting rejoicing at how God had brought about reconciliation between them, but they also felt it would be important to communicate this reconciliation to the community — especially because of the way that their conflict had impacted the rest of the village.

Mick explains the significance of this decision:

In Papua New Guinea, a conflict is not considered settled until there is a “reconciliation ceremony” in which the persons or families in conflict share food together, apologize to each other and make an outward demonstration of reconciliation to the entire village. Therefore, the six church leaders agreed that it was necessary to perform such a ceremony in the village in order to bring both factions together in peace. It was also agreed that the two sides would equally share any costs involved in the reconciliation ceremony. With this resolve, the six leaders agreed to go back to the village and make arrangements for such a celebration.

Indeed, “How good and pleasant it is when brothers live together in unity!” (Ps. 133:1).  Thanks to Mick’s intervention, Paul and Michael are again enjoying the blessings of fellowship as brothers in Christ and of bearing witness to their community that Christ is working in his church in Papua New Guinea.

Mick Bandy is a missionary in Papua New Guinea who works with the Scripture Application and Leadership Training (SALT) Project.  The goal of the SALT Project is to train and equip local leaders in Papua New Guinea.



by the Rev. Eric Foley

If Koreans follow the recent example of how the Amish responded to a shooting tragedy, we can change Americans’ opinions of Koreans.

Mrs. Foley and I met last month in Korea with our good friend, Elder Chun, one of the leaders of the Holy Club movement. He told us that he would be leading an April meeting of 100 Korean church pastors and leaders in Las Vegas to answer the question, “How can Korean people overcome the negative opinion that many Americans have of Koreans in the United States?”

That question has become even more important this week now that the news media has revealed that the gunman responsible for the largest shooting in modern American history was a Korean immigrant. Here are some of the comments Americans made to newspapers around the country after they discovered the ethnic identity of the shooter:

 “As in 9/11, another immigrant allowed into this country to kill Americans. I’ll bet he received a U.S. government grant to pay his tuition; and he senselessly killed 32 of our own children.”

“Anybody who eats dogs is highly suspect.”

“No Asian immigration and this tragic incident would not have occurred.”

These comments certainly do not reflect the feelings of most Americans; however, another American point of view was shared much more frequently in USA Today and other newspapers. In response to articles that reported a South Korean official’s comments that South Korea hoped the tragedy would not “stir up racial prejudice or confrontation,” and in response to the news that South Korean students at Virginia Tech were gathering in groups on the campus because they said “it could be dangerous,” several Americans wrote comments like this:

“It is interesting to me that as soon as the killer was identified, South Koreans everywhere, especially the U.S, started worrying about racial prejudice and profiling.”

When some Koreans responded to the shooting by saying, “We express our extreme sadness for the families of the victims, but we hope no one will respond in anger against Koreans,” what Americans heard was, “We hope no one will respond in anger against Koreans.” In other words, Americans sensed that the main concern of Korean people was protecting themselves.

It is understandable that Koreans in the United States feel the need to protect themselves at this tense moment. It is understandable that the Korean students at Virginia Tech would gather together in groups. It is understandable that the Korean government would issue a statement calling on Americans to respond without racial prejudice.

The problem is, these kinds of words and actions reinforce the suspicion that some Americans have that Koreans are more concerned about protecting themselves than they are about mourning with other Americans and finding ways to reach out to families and students directly affected by the shooting.

Because I spend so much of my time with Korean people, I know that these suspicions are not true. I know that Korean people care deeply about the students and families who were affected by the shooting. But as an American, I also know the saying that Americans like to quote: “Actions speak louder than words.”

Americans will not evaluate Koreans by the words Koreans speak in response to this tragedy. They will evaluate Koreans by the actions Koreans take to aid those who have suffered. Americans are watching closely now to see what the Korean community does. How will we respond? Will Koreans only express sorrow with words, or will we show Americans through our actions that we care more about others than we do about our own protection?

On October 2, 2006, another gunman, Charles Roberts, entered a one-room Amish schoolhouse and killed five young Amish girls by shooting them in the head. How did the Amish people respond? This is an important question, because the Amish people, like the Korean people, are often misunderstood by Americans. Before this shooting in 2006, Amish people had the same kind of reputation as Korean people have now: Americans had always believed that Amish people were more focused on protecting themselves than on anything else.

But the Amish surprised everyone with their response to this terrible tragedy — the worst tragedy in their modern history. Although the Amish people were deeply shocked and saddened by the murder of their own children, they refused to focus on themselves. On the day of the murder, the grandfather of one of the girls who had been killed said, “We must not think evil of this man.” On the day of the murder, Amish people went to the home of the murderer’s wife to forgive her and comfort her. Nearly 30 Amish people attended the murderer’s funeral so that they could reach out with love and forgiveness to the murderer’s family members.

Even though their own children had been shot, the Amish people responded by loving those who harmed them. They did this not only with their words, but also with their actions.



Posted on

February 18, 2015