Anabaptist Exceptionalism and Response to Government

[steve-in-kville]

Wade, can I offer you an example of bad behavior I am talking about? In the height of the pandemic, Walmart required masks for entry, and staff stood by to offer you a mask if you didn't have one. In our area, plain people sometimes rudely refused to acknowledge the requirement or the staff that were just doing their job, and proceeded into the store unmasked. Many people observed this kind of behavior and wondered why these Mennonites wouldn't comply. Can I ask you what chance these people had of sharing Christ with the world while behaving in this manner? Would it surprise you if I told you that the chances of them being able to witness for Christ in those circumstances was reduced?

This same response was/is common more in Lancaster Co., than Lebanon, and ironically, I witnessed several non-conservative people being defiant as well.

Recently, many local businesses have posted signs that ask un-vaccinated people to wear masks inside their establishment. But no one ever asks.

[Josh]

Yes, this does help to explain. I'm wondering if the "bad behavior" has increased in the last 100 years as plain Anabaptists have received various exemptions for a wide variety of things - anything from CO status to not needing to install sanitary outhouses. Seems to me that in the 1500 and 1600's, many Anabaptists were willing to comply with anything they could in order to keep the good will of civil authorities with the hopes that civil authorities would give them religious exemptions when necessary.

I would say that nothing's changed; some governments have simply decided that they are much better off granting all kinds of people religious exemptions for all kinds of things. They want to have a very diverse range of religious practices in their country.

Many early Anabaptists also followed the scriptural instructions for obeying governors and all that are in authority except when their commands violated the higher laws of God. Some Anabaptists today still practice this. I know of one group of churches who talked to their local state representative who told them they could do as they liked, in direct disobedience to the governor's orders. I don't think this type of behavior will stand us well in the future.

They asked a government official. He told them what he thought. Why should they obey the governor instead of a legislator?

When I had my wedding, I called the local county health department and they advised me to do things in defiance to the state. (The local county had also filed a grievance with the state.) Exactly who should I pick as the authority in that situation? Should we go and ask the federal government too? The U.N.? The queen?

[Ken]

Yes, this does help to explain. I'm wondering if the "bad behavior" has increased in the last 100 years as plain Anabaptists have received various exemptions for a wide variety of things - anything from CO status to not needing to install sanitary outhouses. Seems to me that in the 1500 and 1600's, many Anabaptists were willing to comply with anything they could in order to keep the good will of civil authorities with the hopes that civil authorities would give them religious exemptions when necessary.

I would say that nothing's changed; some governments have simply decided that they are much better off granting all kinds of people religious exemptions for all kinds of things. They want to have a very diverse range of religious practices in their country.

Many early Anabaptists also followed the scriptural instructions for obeying governors and all that are in authority except when their commands violated the higher laws of God. Some Anabaptists today still practice this. I know of one group of churches who talked to their local state representative who told them they could do as they liked, in direct disobedience to the governor's orders. I don't think this type of behavior will stand us well in the future.

They asked a government official. He told them what he thought. Why should they obey the governor instead of a legislator?

When I had my wedding, I called the local county health department and they advised me to do things in defiance to the state. (The local county had also filed a grievance with the state.) Exactly who should I pick as the authority in that situation? Should we go and ask the federal government too? The U.N.? The queen?

You weren’t really confused about what laws, regulations, and executive orders were actually in force in your particular situation. The fact that various other government officials might also have disagreed with them and even went so far as to encourage civil disobedience is irrelevant. Also irrelevant is your chances of getting caught and being subject to any sort of fines or sanctions.

Are you similarly cavalier about church regulations or standards that you might disagree with?

[Josh]

You weren’t really confused about what laws, regulations, and executive orders were actually in force in your particular situation. The fact that various other government officials might also have disagreed with them and even went so far as to encourage civil disobedience is irrelevant. Also irrelevant is your chances of getting caught and being subject to any sort of fines or sanctions.

No, it's quite irrelevant, because some government officials may (or were) issuing regulations far in excess of their authority. Citizens do not have some duty to comply with random government officials demanding that things be done that they have no right to expect people to do.

The legislature is supposed to make laws. If no laws were made, then the executive branch does not have free reign to rule like some kind of dictators.

And in the example I cited above, the county health department and their executive branch (the sheriff) were unified - they had zero plans to go around arresting people for meeting for church, or having a wedding. Instead, they advised how best to do so without attracting the attention of the state government.

Of course, whilst this was going on, the governor was busy going to an indoor fund-raising party at the French Laundry where they didn't wear masks. So my respect for the county government there is quite high - my respect for the governor and the state is quite low.

Are you similarly cavalier about church regulations or standards that you might disagree with?

For things where I don't feel a strong personal conviction, I focus on what my local congregation teaches about. There is not some competition of legislatures, executive branches, etc. with governors running around exceeding their authority.

The average American commits 3 felonies a day (according to Silverglate, who would be an expert on the topic). Expecting complete compliance with every local, state, federal, and international law and regulation is ridiculous and you know it.

[Heirbyadoption]

Some government officials may (or were) issuing regulations far in excess of their authority. Citizens do not have some duty to comply with random government officials demanding that things be done that they have no right to expect people to do.

Do Christians have such a duty, however, or do we get the same loophole as unregenerate Citizen Joe by claiming that Caesar's requirements are only valid upon us if A. they don't require us to violate the Scriptures and B. they aren't in contradiction to any of his other laws...?

[Josh]

Some government officials may (or were) issuing regulations far in excess of their authority. Citizens do not have some duty to comply with random government officials demanding that things be done that they have no right to expect people to do.

Do Christians have such a duty, however, or do we get the same loophole as unregenerate Citizen Joe by claiming that Caesar's requirements are only valid upon us if A. they don't require us to violate the Scriptures and B. they aren't in contradiction to any of his other laws...?

How does one obey two contradictory laws?

In particular, if the state says “don’t meet for church, don’t sing, and don’t get married”, yet the county says it’s ok to do those things, I don’t see why anyone has an obligation to follow the least-favourable option. (That was the exact situation in California last summer.)

[Heirbyadoption]

Unless one authority supercedes the other, yes?

[ken_sylvania]

Some government officials may (or were) issuing regulations far in excess of their authority. Citizens do not have some duty to comply with random government officials demanding that things be done that they have no right to expect people to do.

Do Christians have such a duty, however, or do we get the same loophole as unregenerate Citizen Joe by claiming that Caesar's requirements are only valid upon us if A. they don't require us to violate the Scriptures and B. they aren't in contradiction to any of his other laws...?

I think I have come to the conclusion that demands made by a government official or agency outside of the scope of his/her/its authority are no more binding upon us than demands made by any other random individual. I don't think I would characterize that as a loophole, but maybe you would.

[Heirbyadoption]

Some government officials may (or were) issuing regulations far in excess of their authority. Citizens do not have some duty to comply with random government officials demanding that things be done that they have no right to expect people to do.

Do Christians have such a duty, however, or do we get the same loophole as unregenerate Citizen Joe by claiming that Caesar's requirements are only valid upon us if A. they don't require us to violate the Scriptures and B. they aren't in contradiction to any of his other laws...?

I think I have come to the conclusion that demands made by a government official or agency outside of the scope of his/her/its authority are no more binding upon us than demands made by any other random individual. I don't think I would characterize that as a loophole, but maybe you would.

Interesting. Not trying to pick here, just curious about your thought process. How do you personally decide what is outside of his/her/its authority, which would then free you from any obligation to submit to it? The latest list of laws, the general scope of their authority, the virtue of their position, etc, etc?

[Ken]

Some government officials may (or were) issuing regulations far in excess of their authority. Citizens do not have some duty to comply with random government officials demanding that things be done that they have no right to expect people to do.

Do Christians have such a duty, however, or do we get the same loophole as unregenerate Citizen Joe by claiming that Caesar's requirements are only valid upon us if A. they don't require us to violate the Scriptures and B. they aren't in contradiction to any of his other laws...?

I think I have come to the conclusion that demands made by a government official or agency outside of the scope of his/her/its authority are no more binding upon us than demands made by any other random individual. I don't think I would characterize that as a loophole, but maybe you would.

Yes, but we actually have legal channels in which to challenge laws or orders that we believe to be outside the authority of the agency or official ordering them.

I know people who think speed limits are an unconstitutional infringement on freedom. They might be right about that. What do I know? But the proper way to challenge a law that you disagree with is not to drive at 95 mph past an elementary school, but to challenge the law in court.