Practising Non-Resistance

[Verity]

Commenting on your original question Sudsy, I wonder at times if Anabaptist understand what they mean by nonresistance themselves. The doctrine is based on Jesus' instruction hat we "resist not evil" and turn the other cheek. Practical application of this varies widely, even within congregations. I personally believe that no Scripture will conflict with the rest of God's Word. Pairing "resist not evil" with "love thy neighbor as thyself" is how we are striving to teach our children. There are times and places that evil should be resisted.

One example we faced not long ago. A man from the community went on a rampage, endangering himself and those around him. A neighbor called the police, as I expected anyone would have done, and the man was taken into custody and received the help he needed. No one was harmed, thank God. A huge stew resulted, though, because the neighbor who called 911 was a Mennonite. None of the community (that I am aware of) faulted them- it was appreciated that they took prompt action. Some at church did find fault, saying that this was not practicing nonresistance. The main fault finders took it upon themselves to go around asking everyone's opinions and collecting a list of grievances. When they came to me, I said upfront that I would have done the same thing and called the police. It was the right thing to do, out of love to the deranged man and those around him. They then asked a series of (odd) questions which I answered with a simple yes or no until it became clear that there were ulterior motives behind these questions and I ended the discussion. Soon after, a community person told me that Questioner was circulating a rather damning report that supposedly I had confirmed, but it consisted of total lies. This report stemmed from the series of odd unrelated questions. I thanked the community person, told them what had transpired and they were satisfied. Questioner defended their actions and the report they were circulating with "That brother was wrong in calling the police!" The church had not determined he was wrong -God would decide that ultimately- but there was no shadow of a doubt that what Questioner was doing was seriously wrong and certainly not nonresistant. Not only were they causing discord within the congregation, but they had been spreading outright lies in the community. They damaged their own reputation more than the brother they found fault with.

I have yet to meet any Anabaptist who believes it is wrong under any and every circumstance to resist evil. Each person will draw the line in a different place, but ultimately we each fight- whether by word, support or physical action- for what we believe in. Most Anabaptist draw a firm line at taking physical life. Destroying quality of life is quite another matter.

[Sudsy]

Commenting on your original question Sudsy, I wonder at times if Anabaptist understand what they mean by nonresistance themselves. The doctrine is based on Jesus' instruction hat we "resist not evil" and turn the other cheek. Practical application of this varies widely, even within congregations. I personally believe that no Scripture will conflict with the rest of God's Word. Pairing "resist not evil" with "love thy neighbor as thyself" is how we are striving to teach our children. There are times and places that evil should be resisted.

One example we faced not long ago. A man from the community went on a rampage, endangering himself and those around him. A neighbor called the police, as I expected anyone would have done, and the man was taken into custody and received the help he needed. No one was harmed, thank God. A huge stew resulted, though, because the neighbor who called 911 was a Mennonite. None of the community (that I am aware of) faulted them- it was appreciated that they took prompt action. Some at church did find fault, saying that this was not practicing nonresistance. The main fault finders took it upon themselves to go around asking everyone's opinions and collecting a list of grievances. When they came to me, I said upfront that I would have done the same thing and called the police. It was the right thing to do, out of love to the deranged man and those around him. They then asked a series of (odd) questions which I answered with a simple yes or no until it became clear that there were ulterior motives behind these questions and I ended the discussion. Soon after, a community person told me that Questioner was circulating a rather damning report that supposedly I had confirmed, but it consisted of total lies. This report stemmed from the series of odd unrelated questions. I thanked the community person, told them what had transpired and they were satisfied. Questioner defended their actions and the report they were circulating with "That brother was wrong in calling the police!" The church had not determined he was wrong -God would decide that ultimately- but there was no shadow of a doubt that what Questioner was doing was seriously wrong and certainly not nonresistant. Not only were they causing discord within the congregation, but they had been spreading outright lies in the community. They damaged their own reputation more than the brother they found fault with.

I have yet to meet any Anabaptist who believes it is wrong under any and every circumstance to resist evil. Each person will draw the line in a different place, but ultimately we each fight- whether by word, support or physical action- for what we believe in. Most Anabaptist draw a firm line at taking physical life. Destroying quality of life is quite another matter.

Thankyou for sharing that example that you faced. This linked article includes this statement -

What Jesus does require by commanding us not to resist an evil person is to not retaliate. We do not respond in kind, and we shouldn’t try to “get even.” And, when the offense is nothing more than a personal slight, we can ignore it altogether.

https://www.gotquestions.org/do-not-res ... erson.html

Any thoughts on this explanation and how it speaks of there being a time to resist evil and when to be non-resistant ? Anyone ?

[Josh]

It’s important to note that by saying, “Do not resist an evil person,” Jesus is not requiring us to be pacifists or to never resist evil forces.

This is a typical thing that a Reformed person says. "It's important to note that when Jesus says something, he actually means the opposite."

[MaxPC]

Commenting on your original question Sudsy, I wonder at times if Anabaptist understand what they mean by nonresistance themselves. The doctrine is based on Jesus' instruction hat we "resist not evil" and turn the other cheek. Practical application of this varies widely, even within congregations. I personally believe that no Scripture will conflict with the rest of God's Word. Pairing "resist not evil" with "love thy neighbor as thyself" is how we are striving to teach our children. There are times and places that evil should be resisted.

One example we faced not long ago. A man from the community went on a rampage, endangering himself and those around him. A neighbor called the police, as I expected anyone would have done, and the man was taken into custody and received the help he needed. No one was harmed, thank God. A huge stew resulted, though, because the neighbor who called 911 was a Mennonite. None of the community (that I am aware of) faulted them- it was appreciated that they took prompt action. Some at church did find fault, saying that this was not practicing nonresistance. The main fault finders took it upon themselves to go around asking everyone's opinions and collecting a list of grievances. When they came to me, I said upfront that I would have done the same thing and called the police. It was the right thing to do, out of love to the deranged man and those around him. They then asked a series of (odd) questions which I answered with a simple yes or no until it became clear that there were ulterior motives behind these questions and I ended the discussion. Soon after, a community person told me that Questioner was circulating a rather damning report that supposedly I had confirmed, but it consisted of total lies. This report stemmed from the series of odd unrelated questions. I thanked the community person, told them what had transpired and they were satisfied. Questioner defended their actions and the report they were circulating with "That brother was wrong in calling the police!" The church had not determined he was wrong -God would decide that ultimately- but there was no shadow of a doubt that what Questioner was doing was seriously wrong and certainly not nonresistant. Not only were they causing discord within the congregation, but they had been spreading outright lies in the community. They damaged their own reputation more than the brother they found fault with.

I have yet to meet any Anabaptist who believes it is wrong under any and every circumstance to resist evil. Each person will draw the line in a different place, but ultimately we each fight- whether by word, support or physical action- for what we believe in. Most Anabaptist draw a firm line at taking physical life. Destroying quality of life is quite another matter.

Thank you for sharing that example that you faced. This linked article includes this statement -

What Jesus does require by commanding us not to resist an evil person is to not retaliate. We do not respond in kind, and we shouldn’t try to “get even.” And, when the offense is nothing more than a personal slight, we can ignore it altogether.

https://www.gotquestions.org/do-not-res ... erson.html

Any thoughts on this explanation and how it speaks of there being a time to resist evil and when to be non-resistant ? Anyone ?

Verity's exemplar anecdote is quite familiar as I have personally seen it happen repeatedly; most notoriously during the persecution of the Jews by the Gestapo and more recently by dishonest MSM and governmental committees. It is an old behavior, this attempt to manipulate popular opinion through the distortion of answers and questions. Jesus faced the same behaviors from the Saducees and the Pharisees. This type of manipulation is wrong when it seeks to harm another and/or seeks to retaliate. In my frame of reference, it is another form of violence.

I see James 1 proving relevant too:

19 Know this, my beloved brethren. Let every man be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger, 20 for the anger of man does not work the righteousness of God. 21 Therefore put away all filthiness and rank growth of wickedness and receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls.

22 But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves. 23 For if any one is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who observes his natural face in a mirror; 24 for he observes himself and goes away and at once forgets what he was like. 25 But he who looks into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and perseveres, being no hearer that forgets but a doer that acts, he shall be blessed in his doing.

26 If any one thinks he is religious, and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this man’s religion is vain. 27 Religion that is pure and undefiled before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.

[Verity]

God's truth and love must be our guide. I know Mennonites who refuse to own a gun because they do not trust themself to not kill someone with it. There are plenty of other ways to finish someone off, but if you are vulnerable to being trigger happy it is probably better to not posses a gun. Jesus cleansed the temple. Was that nonresistant? I have heard many explanations, such as He was the Son of God and the only one who could resist evil validly, his whip was to drive out animals and not people, the tables were overthrown by stampeding animals and not by Jesus' hands...

Personally I believe it is my moral obligation to turn over criminal activity for the police to handle, not the church. If I am aware of individuals in danger (such as serious child abuse) it needs reported to the authorities. Would I talk with the church member personally? Yes. Would I talk with the leadership? Yes. In addition to reporting, not in lieu of. If someone is endangering themself and others I do not object to physical force to stop them- this is loving my neighbor as myself. I would want someone to restrain me should the tables be turned. I believe that consequences for wrong and dangerous choices are only kind to the individual and those around them.

Would I provoke another to the point of reactive abuse [as has happened several times recently on MN]? No. Will I destroy another with malicious rumors? No. Would I destroy someone's property because they offended me? No. Will I give someone the silent treatment for years because they raised a concern about my negligence in paying bills? No. Will I police my home congregation with regular reports of perceived misdemeanors to my bishop? No. Will I beat my child with a bungee cord because they squealed to their teacher about how home life really is? NO. I have rubbed shoulders with Mennonites who are justify all of these and more. According to God's Word, none are acceptable behavior for a child of God.

Heritage Singers had a song that fits here:

There's no need standin' up for the right
Unless you're gonna stand up against the wrong
Tell me how you're gonna ever stop of being weak
Unless you make your mind up to be strong

[MaxPC]

God's truth and love must be our guide. I know Mennonites who refuse to own a gun because they do not trust themself to not kill someone with it. There are plenty of other ways to finish someone off, but if you are vulnerable to being trigger happy it is probably better to not posses a gun. Jesus cleansed the temple. Was that nonresistant? I have heard many explanations, such as He was the Son of God and the only one who could resist evil validly, his whip was to drive out animals and not people, the tables were overthrown by stampeding animals and not by Jesus' hands...

Personally I believe it is my moral obligation to turn over criminal activity for the police to handle, not the church. If I am aware of individuals in danger (such as serious child abuse) it needs reported to the authorities. Would I talk with the church member personally? Yes. Would I talk with the leadership? Yes. In addition to reporting, not in lieu of. If someone is endangering themself and others I do not object to physical force to stop them- this is loving my neighbor as myself. I would want someone to restrain me should the tables be turned. I believe that consequences for wrong and dangerous choices are only kind to the individual and those around them.

Would I provoke another to the point of reactive abuse [as has happened several times recently on MN]? No. Will I destroy another with malicious rumors? No. Would I destroy someone's property because they offended me? No. Will I give someone the silent treatment for years because they raised a concern about my negligence in paying bills? No. Will I police my home congregation with regular reports of perceived misdemeanors to my bishop? No. Will I beat my child with a bungee cord because they squealed to their teacher about how home life really is? NO. I have rubbed shoulders with Mennonites who are justify all of these and more. According to God's Word, none are acceptable behavior for a child of God.

Heritage Singers had a song that fits here:

There's no need standin' up for the right
Unless you're gonna stand up against the wrong
Tell me how you're gonna ever stop of being weak
Unless you make your mind up to be strong

Amen. Well said.

[Sudsy]

I think we likely all agree that words matter and some of us are more easily offended than others. It would also seem to me that most here would agree that non-resistance does not mean that one cannot give an alternative view or an opposite view on a subject. Perhaps we can move on to what we think are better ways to resist what others believe and/or practise that are ways that perhaps may minimize personal offense.

So, with regard to our postings here, our choice of words and phrases are important as they not only reflect our spiritual hearts condition (how the Holy Spirit is working in us) but how others respond to the words we use.

For example, the beginning word or phrase in response to another's post can have quite an adverse effect on reading any further. Suppose someone disagrees with what I have posted and their response begins. 'No' or 'Wrong' or 'Not correct', then this can be a real turn off for some that this person is suggesting they know better than me and the following in their post is the truth on the matter. They may have a conviction that they have the truth but their approach can be a real turn off to communications and can lead to strife. Again the scripture 'a soft answer turneth away wrath' comes to mind.

However, if I begin the post with - 'The way I see it is' or 'My understanding is' or 'In my experience', for me at least, I would not feel being put down up front and would read on and consider this alternate understanding.

Inferring that someone is lying is another area that pops up. People seldom come outright and call someone a 'liar' but in the words they use this is what is being inferred. An alternative might be to ask for more clarification and perhaps at some point not press the issue to prove beyond doubt that they are not telling the truth.

Would like to hear what others are thinking on this. I believe some here would really like to see a more gentle way of treating each other as we share our beliefs and practises.

[MaxPC]

I think we likely all agree that words matter and some of us are more easily offended than others. It would also seem to me that most here would agree that non-resistance does not mean that one cannot give an alternative view or an opposite view on a subject. Perhaps we can move on to what we think are better ways to resist what others believe and/or practise that are ways that perhaps may minimize personal offense.

So, with regard to our postings here, our choice of words and phrases are important as they not only reflect our spiritual hearts condition (how the Holy Spirit is working in us) but how others respond to the words we use.

For example, the beginning word or phrase in response to another's post can have quite an adverse effect on reading any further. Suppose someone disagrees with what I have posted and their response begins. 'No' or 'Wrong' or 'Not correct', then this can be a real turn off for some that this person is suggesting they know better than me and the following in their post is the truth on the matter. They may have a conviction that they have the truth but their approach can be a real turn off to communications and can lead to strife. Again the scripture 'a soft answer turneth away wrath' comes to mind.

However, if I begin the post with - 'The way I see it is' or 'My understanding is' or 'In my experience', for me at least, I would not feel being put down up front and would read on and consider this alternate understanding.

Inferring that someone is lying is another area that pops up. People seldom come outright and call someone a 'liar' but in the words they use this is what is being inferred. An alternative might be to ask for more clarification and perhaps at some point not press the issue to prove beyond doubt that they are not telling the truth.

Would like to hear what others are thinking on this. I believe some here would really like to see a more gentle way of treating each other as we share our beliefs and practises.

In my experience, trying to regulate precise speech patterns is only successful in small communities and even then, the culture of the membership may speak in abbreviated sentences that can be mistaken as short, curt and rude.

In a forum whose membership comes from multiple cultures and continents, it will prove even more difficult, especially in an era of shortened attention spans that are impatient with long posts.

I do believe it would be easier to implement a standard of pause, pray and then only if absolutely important, post when one feels offended or even passionate about a pet cause.

Those who are easily offended may find that too, as being difficult and perhaps should either stop visiting forums for a season or at the very least, pause and not post for two days or more in order to let the emotions calm down. It is much easier after two or more days to extend grace. Heated emotional responses have never served the Gospel.