Mennonites and War

[Bootstrap]

I'm not saying there are no scenarios where it is unclear.

But there are certainly scenarios where it is. Hamas attacked Israel on October 7th. Russia attacked Ukraine, it was not the other way around. There seems to be an attempt to make clear things cloudy here.

Just like Japan attacked America. There was no nuance behind it.

It’s an overly simplistic view of war that ignores substantially more context in view of making a simple binary, good or bad idealistic view.
I don’t think we should be involved in making these decisions at all and I think as stated multiple times this is one of the differences between conservative Anabaptists and not.

I agree that neither you nor I are in Caesar’s position, so we don’t need to take on that role ourselves. At the same time, I think it’s important to recognize that there is a real difference between military invasion and military defense, and not to blur those distinctions entirely. While some situations are complex, there are also cases where it’s fairly clear who initiated an attack and who is responding.

If your goal is to refrain from making judgments about Caesar’s role, the most consistent way to do that might be to avoid passing judgment—either by declaring everything equally clear-cut or by declaring everything equally uncertain. Or by saying that the aggressor was wrong to invade, but the defender was equally wrong to defend themselves. These are all ways of making judgements about Caesar's role.

[Bootstrap]

I'm not saying there are no scenarios where it is unclear.

But there are certainly scenarios where it is. Hamas attacked Israel on October 7th. Russia attacked Ukraine, it was not the other way around. There seems to be an attempt to make clear things cloudy here.

What clear thing are you talking about? Who do you think is trying to make it cloudy, and in what way?

It feels to me like rather than wrestling with the inherent difficulties and contradictions of your chosen world view, you would rather hand-wave away all objections and all nuances and pretend they don't exist. I don't that's good faith discussion.

I don’t think the “nuances” you’re raising are about the same things I’m talking about. My point is that in some cases, it’s factually clear who initiated aggression and who responded—regardless of how we interpret or apply that in light of our worldview.

I sometimes hear these conversations drift toward a position that treats all acts of violence as morally the same, that the defender is as culpable as the aggressor, or that events are so unknowable that moral clarity is impossible. I don’t share that view. While many situations are complex, I believe there are times when moral clarity is possible and necessary.

Of course, we don’t have to weigh in on Caesar’s actions at all. But if we choose to do so, we should be clear about the difference between defending against aggression and initiating it, and not erase those distinctions under the banner of complexity.

[Bootstrap]

Yes, but this thread is about war, which is usually a bit more complicated.

But sometimes we overcomplicate it.

Hamas was wrong on October 7th. Yes, Israel has done a LOT of wrong to Palestinians, but that does not excuse October 7th. Israel has done horribly wrong things in Gaza. Yes, October 7th was a major atrocity, but that doesn't mean you can starve civilians or bomb residential apartment buildings with impunity. Hitler was wrong to invade the Sudetenland. Putin was wrong to try to eliminate Ukraine as an independent country by invading it and committing atrocities against civilians.

Do you think any of those are morally hard calls?

All human life is sacred. But sometimes we overcomplicate it.

In each of these cases, the atrocity lies precisely in the fact that all human life is sacred—and that this principle was being flagrantly violated.

We see the same truth in other contexts as well: in countries without a functioning police force, where life is cheap, sex trafficking is common, and danger is everywhere, the devaluing of human life leads to widespread injustice and suffering.

This is part of my understanding of Romans 13. God has entrusted Caesar with the sword to restrain evil and protect life. And God will judge Caesar on how he does that.

[GaryK]

If making moral judgments on who the aggressors are in wars is based on Jesus' teachings, then Jesus' teachings on returning good for evil must also be applied to the victims of wars, correct?

[Bootstrap]

If making moral judgments on who the aggressors are in wars is based on Jesus' teachings, then Jesus' teachings on returning good for evil must also be applied to the victims of wars, correct?

Are you suggesting that Jesus’ disciples themselves are the ones meant to bear the sword? That’s not how I read Romans 13. I also don’t see Romans 13 as teaching that Caesar operates according to Jesus’ commands—it seems to describe a different role and responsibility altogether.

[GaryK]

If making moral judgments on who the aggressors are in wars is based on Jesus' teachings, then Jesus' teachings on returning good for evil must also be applied to the victims of wars, correct?

Are you suggesting that Jesus’ disciples themselves are the ones meant to bear the sword? That’s not how I read Romans 13. I also don’t see Romans 13 as teaching that Caesar operates according to Jesus’ commands—it seems to describe a different role and responsibility altogether.

No, I'm not suggesting that. I'm just wondering what the basis is for Christians to make a moral aggressor/victim judgment on nation-state wars? Earlier you said that if we do choose to weigh in "we should be clear about the difference between defending against aggression and initiating it". I'm wondering what the moral basis for that statement is. Is it something Jesus or the Apostles taught?

[Bootstrap]

If making moral judgments on who the aggressors are in wars is based on Jesus' teachings, then Jesus' teachings on returning good for evil must also be applied to the victims of wars, correct?

Are you suggesting that Jesus’ disciples themselves are the ones meant to bear the sword? That’s not how I read Romans 13. I also don’t see Romans 13 as teaching that Caesar operates according to Jesus’ commands—it seems to describe a different role and responsibility altogether.

No, I'm not suggesting that. I'm just wondering what the basis is for Christians to make a moral aggressor/victim judgment on nation-state wars? Earlier you said that if we do choose to weigh in "we should be clear about the difference between defending against aggression and initiating it". I'm wondering what the moral basis for that statement is. Is it something Jesus or the Apostles taught?

I don't think Jesus clearly taught every moral judgment. He said nothing about abortion, for instance. But when people tell me it’s impossible to know if an unborn baby is a human life, I see that as avoiding moral clarity where it is, in fact, possible. In the same way, I think there are situations in war where we can clearly recognize who initiated aggression, even if the broader circumstances are complex.

For example, intentionally bombing a civilian apartment building isn’t a matter of nuance—it’s a clear moral wrong. Taking over another country by force in order to annex it isn't a matter of nuance—it’s a clear moral wrong.

[GaryK]

Are you suggesting that Jesus’ disciples themselves are the ones meant to bear the sword? That’s not how I read Romans 13. I also don’t see Romans 13 as teaching that Caesar operates according to Jesus’ commands—it seems to describe a different role and responsibility altogether.

No, I'm not suggesting that. I'm just wondering what the basis is for Christians to make a moral aggressor/victim judgment on nation-state wars? Earlier you said that if we do choose to weigh in "we should be clear about the difference between defending against aggression and initiating it". I'm wondering what the moral basis for that statement is. Is it something Jesus or the Apostles taught?

I don't think Jesus clearly taught every moral judgment. He said nothing about abortion, for instance. But when people tell me it’s impossible to know if an unborn baby is a human life, I see that as avoiding moral clarity where it is, in fact, possible. In the same way, I think there are situations in war where we can clearly recognize who initiated aggression, even if the broader circumstances are complex.

For example, intentionally bombing a civilian apartment building isn’t a matter of nuance—it’s a clear moral wrong. Taking over another country by force in order to annex it isn't a matter of nuance—it’s a clear moral wrong.

What Jesus taught about killing doesn't apply to abortion?

I think comparing wars with abortion is an apples to oranges comparison. We can clearly speak about the immorality of abortion based on what Jesus taught but I'm not sure the same can be done about the morality/immorality of wars. I'm still interested in what the moral basis is for the statement "we should be clear about the difference between defending against aggression and initiating it" in relation to wars?

[Soloist]

For example, intentionally bombing a civilian apartment building isn’t a matter of nuance—it’s a clear moral wrong. Taking over another country by force in order to annex it isn't a matter of nuance—it’s a clear moral wrong.

Bombing a military base isn’t a clear moral wrong?

Both of those would take life why are you equating one life as less valuable than another?

No one is arguing that invading the country isn’t wrong.
The argument is against moralizing one side as right.

[Bootstrap]

I don't think Jesus clearly taught every moral judgment. He said nothing about abortion, for instance. But when people tell me it’s impossible to know if an unborn baby is a human life, I see that as avoiding moral clarity where it is, in fact, possible. In the same way, I think there are situations in war where we can clearly recognize who initiated aggression, even if the broader circumstances are complex.

For example, intentionally bombing a civilian apartment building isn’t a matter of nuance—it’s a clear moral wrong. Taking over another country by force in order to annex it isn't a matter of nuance—it’s a clear moral wrong.

What Jesus taught about killing doesn't apply to abortion?

I think comparing wars with abortion is an apples to oranges comparison. We can clearly speak about the immorality of abortion based on what Jesus taught but I'm not sure the same can be done about the morality/immorality of wars. I'm still interested in what the moral basis is for the statement "we should be clear about the difference between defending against aggression and initiating it" in relation to wars?

Gary, could I ask you to think about it this way? Imagine a police officer stopping an active school shooter. In both cases, a life is taken, and every life is valuable, but the circumstances are very different. One is initiating violence against the innocent; the other is using force to stop that violence and protect lives.

Do you think that same kind of moral distinction could apply to wars—where defending against aggression is different from starting it? I’d really like to hear how you would evaluate that.