In his excellent collection of essays entitled This Mighty Scourge: Perspectives on the Civil War, historian James M. McPherson writes the following about the determination of Abraham Lincoln in obtaining an honorable peace through victory: “Northern determination to see the matter through “was never more firm, nor more nearly unanimous, than now” said the president. But this consummation could not be achieved by negotiations with “the insurgent leader,” Jefferson Davis, who “does not attempt to deceive us. He affords us no excuse to deceive ourselves. He cannot voluntarily accept the Union; we cannot voluntarily yield it. Between him and us the issue is distinct, simple, and inflexible. It is an issue which can only be tried by war, and decided by victory [1].”” This note is a brief attempt to examine in what circumstances a struggle exists wherein there can be no peace without victory, and to explore what conduct is necessary to conduct such a struggle.

In the American Civil War, there was no possibility of peace without victory for either one side or the other. For there to be peace one of two events had to occur. Either the Union was to be maintained, which meant that the rebellion of the South had to be crushed, or that rebellion had to succeed in the establishment of a nation conceived on slavery and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal, but some men are more equal than others, as was said in Animal Farm. One or the other had to occur—there was no possibility of a compromise, nor a reconciliation that did not admit the victory of either one side or the other.

What does this mean for other conflicts? There are some conflicts that are based on misunderstandings, where a correction of a mistaken belief can lead to peace. There are other conflicts that are not worth fighting for and where an honorable compromise can be made between two sides—such as a labor union and company discussing a new collective bargaining agreement. In these situations conflicts can arise, but there is at least the possibility of a peace that satisfies both sides, even if neither side gets everything they want. If a disagreement is based on a misunderstanding, then a proper understanding can allow two people to again see eye-to-eye. Likewise, two sides bargaining over terms can accept a moderate solution that both can live with, even if both sides wanted more. However, not all conflicts lend themselves to solutions this way.

Sometimes, there can be no peace without victory. This occurs when there are only two options and an impossibility to mediate between the two, or when the dispute involves matters of principle where there are only two options: yes or no. In such a case, any yes is victory to one side and any no is victory to the other. Issues of independence and control are fundamentally uncompromisable. For example, God claims complete sovereignty over the entire universe. There is no area of human or spiritual existence, thought, or action where He does not claim rule and does not enforce His standard of conduct. This claim is uncompromisable. Either it is true, or it isn’t. If it is true, than no human being or rebellious demon has legitimate rule to be the ultimate authority. If it is not true, then there is space for beings to behave without falling under God’s authority, and without being accountable to Him. As God will not surrender His rightful authority, the only choices available are surrender (accepting God’s rule) or destruction. There are no other options available. For the universe to be at peace, God must either surrender (not happening) or win. The only choice a being estranged from His kingdom has is whether to voluntarily make peace by surrendering to God’s rule or to suffer destruction for refusing to accept God’s rule on His terms.

This analogy can be extended into other fields as well. Most of the nations of the world themselves have their independence as a result of winning it from some other power. The United States was once part of England’s colonial empire, and purchased, ceded, or “liberated” land that belonged to France, Spain, Russia, Mexico, and two independent republics (Texas and Hawaii). Likewise, most of the nations of Latin America were once part of Spain’s empire, the Philippines belonged to first Spain and then the United States, African nations were parts of the empires of Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Portugal, and Belgium, and so on. Sometimes this independence was gained through war (like the United States), sometimes it happened very gradually through time (as was the case in Canada and Australia), sometimes it happened as a result of a plebiscite (as happened when Montenegro gained its independence from Serbia with a 55% vote overseen by the European Union), and sometimes it has happened because a nation has declared independence and the imperial nation simply lacks the force to contest it (as happened when Slovenia declared its independence from Yugoslavia). However it happens, though, either one side or the other must win if there is to be peace. Either a nation exists or it doesn’t. Either an imperial nation is in charge, or it isn’t. There is no middle ground.

The same kind of situation exists when it comes to control. When there are worldview conflicts at stake, no compromise is possible because there is no agreement as to common ground where peace can be found between the two sides. For example, there could be no peace between Communists and those supporting Western Democracy, simply because Communists denied the legitimacy of “bourgeois” political parties, and only accepted rule by themselves. No peace was possible because the possibility of power sharing or compromise did not exist. The Communists were unwilling in Czechoslovakia or Poland or any other nation they ruled for a genuine freedom of the people to choose their leaders for themselves. Any temporary coalition in a nation where Communists were a minority, like France or Italy, was only a tactical decision to further their goals of control and takeover. If a particular political party is intransigent, unwilling to give ground or work nicely with others, there can be no peace with them unless they are driven out of government and forced into hiding or exile. Otherwise such power-hungry scoundrels are a permanent threat to the security and well-being of that state.

Obviously there are parallels between the affairs of nations and the affairs of other groups, like churches and businesses. In such cases where there is no acceptance of the legitimacy of a government, there can be no peace until such people either accept legitimacy or are no longer a threat to destroy that government by being driven into exile and away from power. There can be no peace without either central authorities or insurgents being in charge when there are worldview differences at stake.

How then are we to behave?  First, we must seek to understand and define what is at stake as clearly and openly as possible. This we must do for several reasons. For one, we must be clear where we stand before we can make the kind of commitment that is necessary in a worldview struggle. By knowing where we stand, we can make the appropriate defense of our position and seek to bolster those institutions that will help the worldview spread in consistency and dominion. Likewise, understanding our worldview will allow us to determine how we are living up to our own standard (and God’s biblical standard), giving us a target to achieve and an understanding of who is on the Lord’s side along with us in agreement. Second, after defining what is at stake and where the true disagreement stems from, we can act accordingly. Those who disagree must be diagnosed as to the reasons for their disagreement. Those who do not understand must be taught, while those that disagree because of heretical belief must be driven from positions where they can teach error to others. Once the boundaries have been clearly drawn they must be defended fiercely—in the knowledge that there can be no peace without victory, either through surrender of the hostile parties or through their elimination. This knowledge must be recognized and acted upon, with all the seriousness that it entails.

[1] James M. McPherson, This Mighty Scourge: Perspectives on the Civil War (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2007), 179.