Political office

[Gene]

Does it, in the thinking of the denizens of this august group, violate the historical convictions of Anabaptists, to aspire to and/or assume a state legislative office? And, of course, why?

[Praxis+Theodicy]

Yes; historically, anabaptists have shunned the idea of a Christian serving the state in any authoritative role. There are a few reasons for this.
First, the state is the entity that bears the sword, and is an avenger of evil (see Romans 13). The Christian is called to lay down the sword, and to not avenge (see Romans 12).
Secondly, power and authority are themselves seen as antithesis to the Christian walk of humility, washing feet, and esteeming others above themselves.
Thirdly, serving the state requires allegiance to the state and to the nation. Anabaptists have always emphasized that allegience to Jesus and the Kingdom of God is central to true saving faith, and that allegience to secular states compromises that allegience in significant, tangible ways.

More liberal groups, such as MCUSA, probably allow or encourage people to be involved in influential government positions as long as their proximity to the violence of the state is indirect and not direct. So they might serve a function as a public servant or on a legislator, but would not serve as a soldier or policeman. They would also probably emphasize local positions, which can be more relational, versus state or national positions, which are more political and weild more impersonal authority.

[RZehr]

Does it, in the thinking of the denizens of this august group, violate the historical convictions of Anabaptists, to aspire to and/or assume a state legislative office? And, of course, why?

Clearly it does violate the historical convictions of conservative Anabaptists, as clearly evidenced by the distinct lack of participation in that role. It is not due to sheer over sight that they are found absent.

[barnhart]

One of the early Anabaptist leaders was a civil engineer in the employ of the city in charge of water and drainage systems, if I recall correctly. For me the issue would lie with the association of coersive force. There might be some offices I could theoretically occupy, but it's easy to imagine conflicts of interest.

[Ken]

Why are you limiting your question to statewide legislative offices? Is there anything remotely Biblical that makes a distinction between elective office and other forms of public office?

For example, here in Washington State the legislature is composed of 98 Representatives and 49 Senators for a total of 147 state legislators.

By contrast there are approximately 124,000 state employees in Washington serving in some sort of public office. Everything from state police, highway maintenance workers, state ferry employees, fish and game wardens, social workers, state Medicaid workers, etc. etc. etc.

All of them work for the "state" and all of them have varying degrees of state authority. A social worker employed by CPS actually has more coercive authority to wield the power of the state than a legislator does. As does a game warden checking fishing licenses.

[Soloist]

I have never actually met any Mennonites that worked for CPS, and I wouldn’t be surprised if conservative groups would consider that a branch of law enforcement/wielding he sword, a lot like jury duty. Game warden would not be allowed in conservative circles, and Pete Lewis (Unconditional Surrender) used to be a park ranger and had to carry a weapon.
If we’re going to go down that route we might as well ask if there’s anything wrong with being a commission officer in the medical wing of any military group.

Ultimately I think there are one to two problems with most government jobs, as Barnhart identified there is a coercion aspect to many government jobs. Secondly there is the allegiance aspect.
Let’s say for example my example with the commissioned officer in the medical wing. Nothing intrinsically is wrong with medicine, but then we run into issues when it comes to the ability to coerce patients.
Then you also have the oath of allegiance basically. Sure you affirm that you will obey the orders of those above you…
Both of those two issues are still applicable in the non-military medical Corps.
Perhaps you could argue the post office is acceptable and then you go back to the oath, which I have no idea what the oath actually says for the post office I can’t necessarily come up with some strong reason why being in the post office is wrong but I don’t believe affirming something that you can’t do is correct. For us, if I say “yes I will” and then I don’t, then I have broken my word. I don’t see the promise or an oath as being any more significant than me saying yes or no. I think the point Jesus is making is that to have to say some special word should not be necessary to be taken at our word.
Basically any government job could end up being in a coercive position or potentially have to deal with an oath of allegiance.
If you’re a GS worker or in the military, you’re dealing with an oath.
According to my highly informed sources (google), the mail service does take an oath. The actual page is blocked by my filter so I have no idea what the oath actually says. I’m not sure maybe it’s blocking it under “justice” or because it has GOV it’s considered adult content

[ohio jones]

One of the early Anabaptist leaders was a civil engineer in the employ of the city in charge of water and drainage systems, if I recall correctly. For me the issue would lie with the association of coersive force. There might be some offices I could theoretically occupy, but it's easy to imagine conflicts of interest.

You do recall correctly (see avatar).

After settling in Strasbourg in 1528, he became a citizen of the city and was hired as the manager of timber resources. However, "... Marpeck's advice to others not to swear oaths or bear arms, represented a threat to Strasbourg that could not be tolerated." (1) He was expelled from the city in January 1532.

By 1542 he had moved to Augsburg, where he became the city's chief engineer until his death in 1556. On at least four occasions he was warned by the city council about his Anabaptist activities. (2) He nonetheless continued his work as an elder, counselor, writer, and publisher without apparent further consequences.

So I would focus on the content of the responsibility, not necessarily who signs the paycheck. Still, I limit myself to being a subcontractor rather than an employee.

1. Marpeck: A Life of Dissent and Conformity. Klaassen and Klassen, p. 172.
2. Klaassen and Klassen, p. 305.

[ken_sylvania]

I have never actually met any Mennonites that worked for CPS, and I wouldn’t be surprised if conservative groups would consider that a branch of law enforcement/wielding he sword, a lot like jury duty. Game warden would not be allowed in conservative circles, and Pete Lewis (Unconditional Surrender) used to be a park ranger and had to carry a weapon.
If we’re going to go down that route we might as well ask if there’s anything wrong with being a commission officer in the medical wing of any military group.

Ultimately I think there are one to two problems with most government jobs, as Barnhart identified there is a coercion aspect to many government jobs. Secondly there is the allegiance aspect.
Let’s say for example my example with the commissioned officer in the medical wing. Nothing intrinsically is wrong with medicine, but then we run into issues when it comes to the ability to coerce patients.
Then you also have the oath of allegiance basically. Sure you affirm that you will obey the orders of those above you…
Both of those two issues are still applicable in the non-military medical Corps.
Perhaps you could argue the post office is acceptable and then you go back to the oath, which I have no idea what the oath actually says for the post office I can’t necessarily come up with some strong reason why being in the post office is wrong but I don’t believe affirming something that you can’t do is correct. For us, if I say “yes I will” and then I don’t, then I have broken my word. I don’t see the promise or an oath as being any more significant than me saying yes or no. I think the point Jesus is making is that to have to say some special word should not be necessary to be taken at our word.
Basically any government job could end up being in a coercive position or potentially have to deal with an oath of allegiance.
If you’re a GS worker or in the military, you’re dealing with an oath.
According to my highly informed sources (google), the mail service does take an oath. The actual page is blocked by my filter so I have no idea what the oath actually says. I’m not sure maybe it’s blocking it under “justice” or because it has GOV it’s considered adult content

As far as working for the post office - I don't think I could feel that I am pleasing Jesus by delivering porn or other ungodly things into peoples' mailboxes.

[Ken]

I have never actually met any Mennonites that worked for CPS, and I wouldn’t be surprised if conservative groups would consider that a branch of law enforcement/wielding he sword, a lot like jury duty. Game warden would not be allowed in conservative circles, and Pete Lewis (Unconditional Surrender) used to be a park ranger and had to carry a weapon.
If we’re going to go down that route we might as well ask if there’s anything wrong with being a commission officer in the medical wing of any military group.

Ultimately I think there are one to two problems with most government jobs, as Barnhart identified there is a coercion aspect to many government jobs. Secondly there is the allegiance aspect.
Let’s say for example my example with the commissioned officer in the medical wing. Nothing intrinsically is wrong with medicine, but then we run into issues when it comes to the ability to coerce patients.
Then you also have the oath of allegiance basically. Sure you affirm that you will obey the orders of those above you…
Both of those two issues are still applicable in the non-military medical Corps.
Perhaps you could argue the post office is acceptable and then you go back to the oath, which I have no idea what the oath actually says for the post office I can’t necessarily come up with some strong reason why being in the post office is wrong but I don’t believe affirming something that you can’t do is correct. For us, if I say “yes I will” and then I don’t, then I have broken my word. I don’t see the promise or an oath as being any more significant than me saying yes or no. I think the point Jesus is making is that to have to say some special word should not be necessary to be taken at our word.
Basically any government job could end up being in a coercive position or potentially have to deal with an oath of allegiance.
If you’re a GS worker or in the military, you’re dealing with an oath.
According to my highly informed sources (google), the mail service does take an oath. The actual page is blocked by my filter so I have no idea what the oath actually says. I’m not sure maybe it’s blocking it under “justice” or because it has GOV it’s considered adult content

As far as working for the post office - I don't think I could feel that I am pleasing Jesus by delivering porn or other ungodly things into peoples' mailboxes.

Or critical medications for shut-ins?

[barnhart]

I forgot about the post office. My grandfather was a rural mail carrier for 30 years.