Nonviolence?

[Josh]

Anabaptists should not be pacifists. They should be non resistant.

I would agree, but the two terms are useful as pacifism is typical of non plain Anabaptists and nonresistance typical of plain Anabaptists.

[JayP]

Pacifism encourages a peaceful protest that I think is inconsistent with true Anabaptist traditions and theology.
An opinion, but one I think is accurate and points at how Anabaptist thought has been corrupted by it’s more liberal members.

[Soloist]

My wife and I did not know there was a difference in pacifism and non-resistance. We didn’t even know what nonresistance was.
So we happily said we were pacifists when we visited their church and got quizzed and corrected.
They also gave us Dean Taylor‘s book.
We were sort of on the fence about defending our home until after we read Dean‘s book. At that point I’d say we were more Mennonite then the Mennonites.

[Robert]

Pacifism encourages a peaceful protest that I think is inconsistent with true Anabaptist traditions and theology.
An opinion, but one I think is accurate and points at how Anabaptist thought has been corrupted by it’s more liberal members.

Early Anabaptists were not passivists. They were quite assertive as they challenged the Catholic and Lutheran Churches in their areas.

They were nonresistant in their actions, but quite assertive with their voices.

[Ken]

Pacifism encourages a peaceful protest that I think is inconsistent with true Anabaptist traditions and theology.
An opinion, but one I think is accurate and points at how Anabaptist thought has been corrupted by it’s more liberal members.

Pacifism and political activism are two completely separate things. One does not necessarily lead to the other.

But the word "pacifism" is found nowhere in the Bible. It is more of a modern concept. The Bible does speak of "peacemakers", which is something a bit different, and implies an active role, not passive.

[Neto]

As others have already said (probably previously in other discussions, maybe even repeatedly) pacifism and passivism are not the same.

I am not familiar with this source, but here is a quotation from

https://philosophynow.org/issues/105/Pa ... r%20peace.

‘Pacifism’ means ‘peaceloving’. It should not be mistaken for ‘passivism’, which means being passive, suffering acceptance, not resisting evil. Because the two words sound alike, people occasionally confuse one for the other. In fact, pacifists rarely are passivists; more often they are activists, working for peace.

I also had never heard (to my recollection) the word "nonresistence" when I began the move from pro-war patriotism toward a Biblical stance on peace-making. My first exposure was to the Hippie-inspired MCC Peace Section. That was a pretty big jump, but not far enough. And yes, our pacifism believed in activism - non-violent resistance to the war machine. The next jump came as I realized that even this was inconsistent with the Scripture. That part was totally without any outside human influence, other than Menno Simons. I adopted what, as I described my 'position' to my future wife, she called 'nonresistance'. (I was contrasting the two different types of pacifism as "Activistic Pacifism" and something like "Biblical Pacifism". I do not recall the exact term I used for what I then came to know as 'nonresistance'.)

Is non-violent resistance in fact some sort of 'violence'? I'll leave that for the philosophers among us.

[PetrChelcicky]

Pacifism encourages a peaceful protest that I think is inconsistent with true Anabaptist traditions and theology.
An opinion, but one I think is accurate and points at how Anabaptist thought has been corrupted by it’s more liberal members.

Pacifism and political activism are two completely separate things. One does not necessarily lead to the other.

But the word "pacifism" is found nowhere in the Bible. It is more of a modern concept. The Bible does speak of "peacemakers", which is something a bit different, and implies an active role, not passive.

There's a difference between keeping peace and "making peace". I think that the Bible includes more admonitions to keep peace. Now, keeping peace may occasionally and in a small way contribute to making peace, but most modern attempts to "make peace" - may they be clever or stupid - have no models in the Bible.
Imho "peacemaing" should be seen as a secondary aspect: We make peace so that it will become more easy to keep peace!

[PetrChelcicky]

As for non-resistance I suppose that it is a matter of personal judgment.
At least everyone ought to consider if his kind of resistance makes a violent escalation more probable or less probable. Nobody should retreat into an attitude of "well, I did not use violence myself, and if my opponent reacts with violence it's on HIS head". Insofar I support the nonresistant standpoint.

"Non-violence" in the common definition is certainly not enough. For example the Civil Rights Movement used non-violent means but worked for a goal (legislation) which implied the use of force. And everyone shoud have known that from the beginning and spoken about it - in particular the Quakers and Anabaptists among the movement.

[Praxis+Theodicy]

What is the basis of Mennonites supporting nonviolence?

The Mennonite basis is simply the historical Christian position. Look up any Christian writings in the first 300ish years of the church, you will not find any that advocate for violence of any form or in any situation, and many writings from the early church fathers, from the apostles, and from Jesus himself, condemning and forbidding violence.

But if you want to stick with a Biblical text (Mennonites tend to be very biblicist), try Matthew 5:38-48. This text is Jesus explicitly giving a command to anyone who would follow him as a disciple to refrain from violence, even in situations where violence is commonly sanctioned.

If you are curious about the history of the church after the Biblical writings, the book "Ceasar and the Lamb" is a good resource.

To briefly answer this question:
Jesus instructs his followers to refrain from all violence. He instructs this through explicit commands (see Matt 5, above, also Matt 26:52 )and through his example. It is made explicit by Jesus himself and by the writings of the apostles that Jesus' life and character, particularly his self-sacrificial love and nonviolence towards his enemies, is meant to be imitated. This is one of the multitudinous meanings of Jesus' death on the cross. If a Christian uses violence against another human, they are turning their back on the cross of Christ.

1. What is the Mennonite understanding of Luke 22:36?

One this about Mennonites is they have a strict and very simple hermanutic. They look at the Bible and trust what it has to say.
The question begged here (I've seen this done by a lot of preachers/writers) is "Why did Jesus tell them to get swords?" I've seen books and sermons that take Luke 22:36, then ask the question "Why did Jesus tell them to do this?" Then go into a bunch of speculation about self-defence, etc.

The problem is that Luke 22:37 answers the question of "Why?".

So the quick answer to this question is just "Luke 22:37."

I would personally also throw in Luke 22:49-51. Verse 36 is the introduction of the swords. Jesus says they need the swords so that there will be a reason to arrest Jesus (he has to be "numbered among the transgressors). Then the sword is used for violence, which Jesus immediately chides, and even undoes the effects of that violence by healing the man who was hit. Look up the storytelling device called "Chekov's Gun", and you'll l understand why verse 36 is best understood as a "setup" for verses 49-51.

2. What is the Mennonite view of Matthew 21:12? This is violence against property, not people. Are there any Mennonites who followed Jesus's example here?

I'm sure there are some Mennonites who follow Jesus' actions here, but they would be few and far between. The closest I've come to seeing something like this is the Ploughshares Actions, but that is a Catholic group. Conservative Mennonites have a long tradition of living peaceful, quiet lives, living at peace with all and oweing no one anything except love. You won't find many who will resort to property damage to correct blasphemy and/or economic injustice. Some liberal Mennonites might do a peaceful sit-in protest, that's as far as you're likely to find.

I can't speak much to the "Mennonite view" of this passage. Again, mennonites have a strict, simple view of the Bible. Jesus was pretty clear why he did what he did, he was zealous for his Father's house. Any application for a Christian to imitate Jesus in this passage would have to be pretty specific. What is "God's House" now that the temple's use is passed? Is it people? Do Mennonites value human lives over property? Yeah, almost all of them do. So if it came to it, I bet a mennonite would damage property if it meant saving a human life. But in can't think of examples where that would be a thing.

3. How do Mennonites reconcile the numerous cases of God promoting violence and approving of violence in the Old Testament with their position?

Jesus makes it pretty clear that He is fulfilling the old Testament law (see Matthew 5:17-19, 7:12), and the way he does so is by laying down blanket commands that, when they are obeyed in faithfulness to Jesus, allow one to live out the true righteousness that God was pointing toward in the old covenant. Many parts of the old law were given by God because of the hardness of men's hearts (see Matt 19:7-9), but with the work of Jesus in revealing God and redeeming mankind, and with the ongoing work of the Spirit, our hearts can be freed from the sin that enslaves us and hardens our hearts. We no longer need the "babysitter/guardian" of the old law: Christ shows us and gives us God's righteousness.

All this to say, Jesus is The Way. If anything in the Bible "seems" to contradict his explicit commands, mennonites point out that this is usually because of faulty interpretation on the part of the reader or preacher. The violence in the Old Testament is not an prescription for the follower of Jesus. To come to that conclusion would be extremely irresponsible hermenutics, and mennonites are therefore extremely cautious of the flimsy hermanutic that comes with using the old Testament to justify certain acts of violence.

[JayP]

The US civil rights movement demonstrates well the differences between non resistance and pacifism.

Not passing judgment, just illustrating that the civil rights activists were non violent in their resistance, but they did resist.
A traditional Anabaptist, as opposed to a liberal Mennonite, would not have joined them.

If you tell a non resistance person to move to the back of the bus, they go.

Again, please do not call me either a racist or something else. I am NOT opposing the civil rights movement.
I am merely using a historical episode to demonstrate meanings.
I personally am not non resistant. Nor am I a pacifist. If you come in my house to kill my children I will shoot at you.