Evil and Violence

[Soloist]

Ken, you have had this argument with a few of us a few times. We don’t agree that we hold responsibility for political figures we don’t vote for. We also don’t agree that our taxes have moral implications for us. If we did believe that though, the logical conclusion is to make less money.

[Ken]

Ken, you have had this argument with a few of us a few times. We don’t agree that we hold responsibility for political figures we don’t vote for. We also don’t agree that our taxes have moral implications for us. If we did believe that though, the logical conclusion is to make less money.

I believe there are two types of responsibility. Collective responsibility and individual responsibility.

I don't believe we are individually responsible for decisions by our government that we did not have a say in. The decision-makers who made those decisions are individually responsible, as are those who carry them out.

But I believe that in a republic we are collectively responsible for the decisions and actions of our government. How far does that responsibility go and what does that mean? I think it means that we are obligated at a minimum to choose our leaders as best as we can, and to hold them accountable. How we do that is up to us. Voting, speaking out, supporting actions that we do agree with, etc. In a nation of 330 million people none of us will ever completely get our way. But that fact doesn't absolve us of our responsibilities as citizens. That is what being a citizen means (as opposed to a subject).

So, for example, we as Americans are more collectively culpable for what is happening in Gaza than say the citizens of Costa Rica. Whose government (unlike ours) is not funding the war in Gaza, providing material support, and diplomatic cover. But we are not individually responsible for what is happening in Gaza unless we happen to be high-ranking diplomats in the State Department who are making decisions about the US role in that conflict.

[RZehr]

You also have to remember that we view ourselves as strangers and pilgrims, citizens of a heavenly country, ambassadors to earth. As such, our responsibility to influence governmental policy and responsibility for those policies ought to be considered significantly watered down - or at least significantly different than non-Christians - in that light.

I’m not saying that we do it all consistently or in the best way. There are areas that I’m uncertain in.
I think there is room for the way the Amish and the way Bootstrap (-seems) relates to government. I don’t think the right way is extremely narrow or precisely delineated. But I do think it is different than the civic minded non-Christian American.

[Ken]

You also have to remember that we view ourselves as strangers and pilgrims, citizens of a heavenly country, ambassadors to earth. As such, our responsibility to influence governmental policy and responsibility for those policies ought to be considered significantly watered down - or at least significantly different than non-Christians - in that light.

I’m not saying that we do it all consistently or in the best way. There are areas that I’m uncertain in.
I think there is room for the way the Amish and the way Bootstrap (-seems) relates to government. I don’t think the right way is extremely narrow or precisely delineated. But I do think it is different than the civic minded non-Christian American.

I'm perfectly aware of that sort of Anabaptist theology. But it is also from a time (the early church and later reformation) when people were subjects of a sovereign and not citizens of a republic.

From my point of view, it doesn't really matter how you view yourselves. You are still citizens of a republic, whether you choose to participate in the governing of said republic or not. And that government is going to act on your behalf. For example, take voting. Your local Congressman's district is based on the number of people in the district including you. And the electoral college votes from your state are also based on you. You are being represented and votes and decisions are being made based on you. Nothing of the sort was happening during the time of Jesus or the time of Menno Simons. The were simply subjects of a distant sovereign.

[RZehr]

You also have to remember that we view ourselves as strangers and pilgrims, citizens of a heavenly country, ambassadors to earth. As such, our responsibility to influence governmental policy and responsibility for those policies ought to be considered significantly watered down - or at least significantly different than non-Christians - in that light.

I’m not saying that we do it all consistently or in the best way. There are areas that I’m uncertain in.
I think there is room for the way the Amish and the way Bootstrap (-seems) relates to government. I don’t think the right way is extremely narrow or precisely delineated. But I do think it is different than the civic minded non-Christian American.

I'm perfectly aware of that sort of Anabaptist theology. But it is also from a time (the early church and later reformation) when people were subjects of a sovereign and not citizens of a republic.

It doesn't really matter how you view yourselves. You are still citizens of a republic, whether you choose to participate in the governing of said republic or not. And that government is going to act on your behalf. Take voting, for example. Your local Congressman's district is based on the number of people in the district including you. And the electoral college votes from your state are also based on you. You are being represented and votes and decisions are being made based on you. Nothing of the sort was happening during the time of Jesus or the time of Menno Simons. The were simply subjects of a distant sovereign.

I don’t see any difference between the two types of governments as it relates to me, provided that I am disengaged from the political process.
In both cases, I then am merely subject to whatever rules and laws that other people made, apply to me. I voluntarily have no more say than I do if I go spend some years in Australia or Mexico as a non-citizen.

[Ken]

You also have to remember that we view ourselves as strangers and pilgrims, citizens of a heavenly country, ambassadors to earth. As such, our responsibility to influence governmental policy and responsibility for those policies ought to be considered significantly watered down - or at least significantly different than non-Christians - in that light.

I’m not saying that we do it all consistently or in the best way. There are areas that I’m uncertain in.
I think there is room for the way the Amish and the way Bootstrap (-seems) relates to government. I don’t think the right way is extremely narrow or precisely delineated. But I do think it is different than the civic minded non-Christian American.

I'm perfectly aware of that sort of Anabaptist theology. But it is also from a time (the early church and later reformation) when people were subjects of a sovereign and not citizens of a republic.

It doesn't really matter how you view yourselves. You are still citizens of a republic, whether you choose to participate in the governing of said republic or not. And that government is going to act on your behalf. Take voting, for example. Your local Congressman's district is based on the number of people in the district including you. And the electoral college votes from your state are also based on you. You are being represented and votes and decisions are being made based on you. Nothing of the sort was happening during the time of Jesus or the time of Menno Simons. The were simply subjects of a distant sovereign.

I don’t see any difference between the two types of governments as it relates to me, provided that I am disengaged from the political process.
In both cases, I then am merely subject to whatever rules and laws that other people made, apply to me. I voluntarily have no more say than I do if I go spend some years in Australia or Mexico as a non-citizen.

Ultimately it is all theoretical. Whether you see yourself as a stranger and citizen of a heavenly country and just an ambassador to earth. Or whether you are a citizen of a republic that is based on the consent of the governed. You are still just one of 330 million and don't really have any individual responsibility or even ability to affect the course of the nation. That is why I distinguish between individual responsibility and collective responsibility.

But as a citizen of the US you do share more collective responsibility for the path that your country takes, than path of a country you are just visiting such as Australia.

I think we all inherently understand this, even if we don't always express it that way.

For example, Mennonites and Americans are currently showing much more attention and concern for what is happening in Gaza than they are about what is happening in Sudan or Myanmar where there are also genocides currently in progress. Right now at this very moment, tens of thousands are being killed in Sudan and there are something like 6.5 million displaced refugees. Yet there is not one peep about that on this forum or frankly in Anabaptist circles. Why is that? Mainly I would suggest it is because we don't have any particular ties to either side that is engaging in conflict in Sudan. And so we have less connection (and less collective responsibility) for what is happening.

It is also the reason why so many here are quick to opine on what Ukraine should do or not do in the Ukraine conflict. Whereas no one much opines about what Russia should be doing or not doing. We are allies with Ukraine and support Ukraine and therefore, have more collective interest in the decisions of Ukraine but not those of Russia.

[Soloist]

For example, Mennonites and Americans are currently showing much more attention and concern for what is happening in Gaza than they are about what is happening in Sudan or Myanmar where there are also genocides currently in progress. Right now at this very moment, tens of thousands are being killed in Sudan and there are something like 6.5 million displaced refugees.

Some of us actually do care… as for Myanmar, my friend is in Bangladesh dealing with refugees from there.

I know more about that then I do about Gaza. A few of us have even mentioned African problems before and generally have pointed out how there doesn’t seem to be much care either. We tend to get “whataboutism” thrown back at us.

I know more about Ukraine due to common military tactics and our churches along with our updates I got with Western fellowship. Pilgrim is tied in with Bangladesh too.

[Ken]

For example, Mennonites and Americans are currently showing much more attention and concern for what is happening in Gaza than they are about what is happening in Sudan or Myanmar where there are also genocides currently in progress. Right now at this very moment, tens of thousands are being killed in Sudan and there are something like 6.5 million displaced refugees.

Some of us actually do care… as for Myanmar, my friend is in Bangladesh dealing with refugees from there.

I know more about that then I do about Gaza. A few of us have even mentioned African problems before and generally have pointed out how there doesn’t seem to be much care either. We tend to get “whataboutism” thrown back at us.

I know more about Ukraine due to common military tactics and our churches along with our updates I got with Western fellowship. Pilgrim is tied in with Bangladesh too.

That makes you very much the exception though. For example, a quick search on the Anabaptist World web site shows that they have published 13 articles about Gaza in the past 6 months

During the same past 6 months they published none about Myanmar and only four total in the past 4 years. And only one article about Sudan which was about churches in Sudan and not the ongoing conflict.

I expect if we check other Christian and mainstream news sites we would find the same thing. A lot of focus on conflicts that we as Americans are connected to through our government, and very little coverage of conflicts outside of our sphere of influence.

Likewise, here on MenNet we have a 318-post thread on Gaza but no one has ever even started any threads about Myanmar or Sudan that I have seen.

[Soloist]

That makes you very much the exception though. For example, a quick search on the Anabaptist World web site shows that they have published 13 articles about Gaza in the past 6 months

During the same past 6 months they published none about Myanmar and only four total in the past 4 years. And only one article about Sudan which was about churches in Sudan and not the ongoing conflict.

That’s your problem then.

Western Fellowship newsletters and Pilgrim doesn’t publish there and I don’t read it. Cam has stuff on Myanmar on it too.

[Josh]

Yet there is not one peep about that on this forum or frankly in Anabaptist circles.

Wrong. It is frequently brought up in Anabaptist circles.