Peace and nonresistance: Mennonite COF 1995

[Josh]

Do you really consider the Swartzentrubers to be the "best and purest" form of Anabaptism?

They (along with many other groups) have had a witness to the surrounding world and been able to resist temptations such as to run for office, file lawsuits, or defend themselves. I feel their witness is worth taking a look at.

Seriously? If so, why are you not one? Do you think the founders of Anabaptism such as Conrad Grebel, Menno Simons, Michael Sattler, Felix Mantz, etc. would recognized the Swartzentrubers as being the best and purest form of Anabaptists? They were all highly educated men and sophisticated theologians. They did not shun technology and just read the Sermon on the Mount over and over.

I'm pretty sure if any of those men got to observe the difference between, say, a "Mennonite" church in Idaho with a woman "preaching" about why it's good to promote abortion vs. Swartzentruber practice, they might find the Swartzies preserved things worth preserving, whilst the Central District alignment of MC USA has not preserved anything worth preserving.

[cooper]

Something I've observed the last 15 years is that some conservative Anabaptist congregations and institutions with the best preaching and best articulation of the historical Anabaptist worldview, cannot seem to convince the next generation of their viewpoint, in spite of this "excellence".

Could it be that the historical Anabaptist worldview emphasizes each person making a choice to be an Anabaptist? Young people are encouraged to make their choices. In contrast to more authoritarian churches that have social norms that make it difficult for young people to make a free choice. I'm sure there are other factors involved...

[Neto]

As I read the COF, it contrasts violence with grace, peace, overcoming evil with good, doing justice, and the peaceable reign of God. That seems right to me:

Led by the Spirit, and beginning in the church, we witness to all people that violence is not the will of God. We witness against all forms of violence, including war among nations, hostility among races and classes, abuse of children and women, violence between men and women, abortion, and capital punishment.

We give our ultimate loyalty to the God of grace and peace, who guides the church daily in overcoming evil with good, who empowers us to do justice, and who sustains us in the glorious hope of the peaceable reign of God.

That's rather different from a 1960s hippie peace stance.

I would say that it is very close to what the "Christian Hippies" of that era would espouse. The middle part is (in my experience) pretty much a down the line Hippie political stance.

I was never "in" the hippie peace movement, just heavily influenced by the MCC Peace Section stance of that period as a "pacifist Jesus Freak", basically late 1974 through at least early 1980, which started a gradual time of re-thinking some of these things, taking at least another year or more. I don't know if there are any sources available that would provide the exact wording that was used during that period. But there is another factor in my own case, in that I do not recall reading their actual statement, although I suspect that I did - I just cannot remember for sure. So maybe it would be more accurate for me to say I was influenced by Mennonite Hippies who at least claimed to be following the MCC Peace Section. I already mentioned the one most influential person, Dietritch Neufelt, the RA for my dormitory floor. I know now that he went on to a career as a university professor in the field of sociology, but I do not have any of his books, nor have I had opportunity to read any of them.

(As to the above paragraph, I do not "resent" that phase or experience, because that time brought me to where I am now.)

[Pelerin]

And that brings me to my overall impression of it: there’s very little concrete to it; there’s a lot of abstract ideas that people across a wide spectrum could read and think it’s saying what they mean. That’s probably by design and it’s not necessarily a bad thing. You can see why someone like me could say that I think I can affirm pretty much everything it says at face value but also be hesitant about what it really means.

I think it means what it says at face value. No more, no less.

But it a Confession of Faith, not a Code of Conduct or an Ordnung. I think a lot of your questions really are about applications, aren't they?

These sorts of things never mean only what they say at face value, which again is not necessarily a bad thing. One word choice can allow two different people to affirm it which is good if it’s trying to capture a wide variety of perspectives. It can be bad if it gives the impression people are saying the same thing when they actually mean something different.

The CoF uses the term “nonresistance” in the first paragraph but by the end of the fourth paragraph we’re resisting evil—“without violence.” I can’t say that surprises me much. I once read an article by a mainline or liberal Mennonite who explained away Jesus’ teaching of turning the other cheek as actually being a sort of nonviolent resistance—an activist protest against being slapped in the first place* and Jesus is teaching not to just sit there and take it. (I think it was Donald Kraybill but it doesn’t matter because I’ve seen that idea elsewhere.)

I think Jesus resisted evil. I think he did it without violence. Do you agree?

This is where the ambiguity comes in. He overcame evil with good? He resisted the temptation of the Devil in the desert and in the garden? Sure. Is that what the Confession of Faith is referring to? The rest of the sentence seems to be drawing on the same passage that the word nonresistance comes from (“resist not evil”) which is why it reminded me of the example I gave.

The more I think about it the example I think the example was from Donald Kraybill’s Upside Down Kingdom. It’s been a number of years since I read it but as I remember: he was trying to illustrate that “pacifism is not passivism” (that might or might not be a literal quote). So what about where Jesus says to just “turn the other cheek?” According to him being slapped on the right cheek was culturally something done to inferiors so turning the other, left cheek was to say, “How dare you?” and demand to be treated as an equal. I don’t have a copy of the book at hand but I think that’s a fair summary.

I think I mostly liked the book overall, so don’t take this as a review but that section was completely unconvincing. It seemed pretty clear to me that he didn’t like the implication that Jesus was saying, “just sit there and take it,” (which in the context of the rest of the passage seems to be exactly what Jesus is saying) so he found a “cultural context” that let him interpret it in a way that he preferred. It’s a lot like the “eye of the needle” thing in that sense.

[Pelerin]

I was going to note that the CoF does address lawsuits but then I realized it actually doesn’t. It mentions “relying on the community of faith to settle disputes,” and I think people from an Anabaptist background would be conditioned to read that as “no lawsuits”—but it doesn’t actually say that. It kind of seems to me that it’s worded vaguely enough that a wide variety of people could think it’s describing their position when they read it.

Maybe Boot you could give your perspective of how you think lawsuits would be viewed in MCUSA?

It's hard to speak for MC-USA as a whole, I can speak of the churches I have experience with. I think people knew the teaching in 1 Corinthians 6 and applied it. I don't remember any lawsuits initiated by people in the churches I was at. There were some businesses who defended themselves against lawsuits.

I was actually a plaintiff in a lawsuit when I was in college. I was part of a group that protested porn films shown on campus - by registering as a student group, the people showing these films could use campus rooms for free and were subsidized in other ways. They filmed the protesters and created a porn film that included scenes of our protests, without our permission. We sued because we did not want to be part of a porn film. Were we wrong to do that?

That’s interesting. For some reason I had you down as attending EMU or somewhere like that but I assume they wouldn’t allow a pornography club on campus.

Were you (and your group in general) Mennonite/Anabaptist at the time? Did you consider it at all in light of, say, Matthew 5:40, etc. before you filled the lawsuit?

Also, did you win? My sense is that the law regarding filming events in public would not be on your side.

[Bootstrap]

That’s interesting. For some reason I had you down as attending EMU or somewhere like that but I assume they wouldn’t allow a pornography club on campus.

Were you (and your group in general) Mennonite/Anabaptist at the time? Did you consider it at all in light of, say, Matthew 5:40, etc. before you filled the lawsuit?

I was at a large state university. The coalition that was protesting pornography was about 1/2 Christian, 1/2 feminist, with very different world views, but I was the only Mennonite.

Also, did you win? My sense is that the law regarding filming events in public would not be on your side.

Oh, you better believe we won. It was a quick, easy trial.

[Bootstrap]

The more I think about it the example I think the example was from Donald Kraybill’s Upside Down Kingdom. It’s been a number of years since I read it but as I remember: he was trying to illustrate that “pacifism is not passivism” (that might or might not be a literal quote). So what about where Jesus says to just “turn the other cheek?” According to him being slapped on the right cheek was culturally something done to inferiors so turning the other, left cheek was to say, “How dare you?” and demand to be treated as an equal. I don’t have a copy of the book at hand but I think that’s a fair summary.

I think I mostly liked the book overall, so don’t take this as a review but that section was completely unconvincing. It seemed pretty clear to me that he didn’t like the implication that Jesus was saying, “just sit there and take it,” (which in the context of the rest of the passage seems to be exactly what Jesus is saying) so he found a “cultural context” that let him interpret it in a way that he preferred. It’s a lot like the “eye of the needle” thing in that sense.

I have seen different versions of this, some strike me as more plausible than others. I think Craig Keener's commentary on Matthew makes sense, and is well documented.

Turning the Other Cheek, Letting God Vindicate Us (5:39)* As in much of Jesus’ teaching, pressing his illustration the wrong way may obscure his point. In fact, this would read Scripture the very way he was warning against: if someone hits us in the nose, or has already struck us on both cheeks, are we finally free to hit back? Jesus gives us a radical example so we will avoid retaliation, not so we will explore the limits of his example (see Tannehill 1975:73). A backhanded blow to the right cheek did not imply shattered teeth (tooth for tooth was a separate statement); it was an insult, the severest public affront to a person’s dignity (Lam 3:30; Jeremias 1963:28 and 1971:239). God’s prophets sometimes suffered such ill-treatment (1 Kings 22:24; Is 50:6). Yet though this was more an affront to honor, a challenge, than a physical injury, ancient societies typically provided legal recourse for this offense within the lex talionis regulations (Pritchard 1955:163, 175; see also Gaius Inst. 3.220).
In the case of an offense to our personal dignity, Jesus not only warns us not to avenge our honor by retaliating but suggests that we indulge the offender further. By freely offering our other cheek, we show that those who are secure in their status before God do not value human honor. Indeed, in some sense we practice resistance by showing our contempt for the value of our insulter’s (and perhaps the onlookers’) opinions! Because we value God’s honor rather than our own (Mt 5:16; 6:1–18), because our very lives become forfeit to us when we begin to follow Jesus Christ (16:24–27), we have no honor of our own to lose. In this way we testify to those who insult us of a higher allegiance of which they should take notice.

Craig S. Keener, Matthew, vol. 1, The IVP New Testament Commentary Series (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1997), Mt 5:39.

[ohio jones]

The more I think about it the example I think the example was from Donald Kraybill’s Upside Down Kingdom. It’s been a number of years since I read it but as I remember: he was trying to illustrate that “pacifism is not passivism” (that might or might not be a literal quote). So what about where Jesus says to just “turn the other cheek?” According to him being slapped on the right cheek was culturally something done to inferiors so turning the other, left cheek was to say, “How dare you?” and demand to be treated as an equal. I don’t have a copy of the book at hand but I think that’s a fair summary.

I do, and it is. He specifically labels it a symbolic act of nonviolent resistance.

[Pelerin]

I have seen different versions of this, some strike me as more plausible than others. I think Craig Keener's commentary on Matthew makes sense, and is well documented.

Turning the Other Cheek, Letting God Vindicate Us (5:39)* As in much of Jesus’ teaching, pressing his illustration the wrong way may obscure his point. In fact, this would read Scripture the very way he was warning against: if someone hits us in the nose, or has already struck us on both cheeks, are we finally free to hit back? Jesus gives us a radical example so we will avoid retaliation, not so we will explore the limits of his example (see Tannehill 1975:73). A backhanded blow to the right cheek did not imply shattered teeth (tooth for tooth was a separate statement); it was an insult, the severest public affront to a person’s dignity (Lam 3:30; Jeremias 1963:28 and 1971:239). God’s prophets sometimes suffered such ill-treatment (1 Kings 22:24; Is 50:6). Yet though this was more an affront to honor, a challenge, than a physical injury, ancient societies typically provided legal recourse for this offense within the lex talionis regulations (Pritchard 1955:163, 175; see also Gaius Inst. 3.220).
In the case of an offense to our personal dignity, Jesus not only warns us not to avenge our honor by retaliating but suggests that we indulge the offender further. By freely offering our other cheek, we show that those who are secure in their status before God do not value human honor. Indeed, in some sense we practice resistance by showing our contempt for the value of our insulter’s (and perhaps the onlookers’) opinions! Because we value God’s honor rather than our own (Mt 5:16; 6:1–18), because our very lives become forfeit to us when we begin to follow Jesus Christ (16:24–27), we have no honor of our own to lose. In this way we testify to those who insult us of a higher allegiance of which they should take notice.

Craig S. Keener, Matthew, vol. 1, The IVP New Testament Commentary Series (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1997), Mt 5:39.

I think this one is better.

The more I think about it the example I think the example was from Donald Kraybill’s Upside Down Kingdom. It’s been a number of years since I read it but as I remember: he was trying to illustrate that “pacifism is not passivism” (that might or might not be a literal quote). So what about where Jesus says to just “turn the other cheek?” According to him being slapped on the right cheek was culturally something done to inferiors so turning the other, left cheek was to say, “How dare you?” and demand to be treated as an equal. I don’t have a copy of the book at hand but I think that’s a fair summary.

I do, and it is. He specifically labels it a symbolic act of nonviolent resistance.

Hmm in that case it was probably the phrase “nonviolent resistance” that made me not like it when I first read it. I remember I got the sense he was saying, “what Jesus actually means…” when I first read it. It also seemed to be obviously targeted against “nonresistance” for those with Anabaptist ears to hear (eyes to read).