ken_sylvania wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 12:08 pmTo expand on my previous answer about whether/how I would engage - If your government decides to march off to war....
My support/engagement with relief efforts would not be affected by whether the US Government was involved in the war, my encouragement/support of conscientious objectors would have more to do with the proximity of affected persons rather than having anything to do with whose government was involved. I'm not aware that Jesus taught anywhere that we have a greater or lesser obligation to show compassion depending on who caused the suffering.
I agree that we should care about all suffering. But I'm also saying that if it is our society marching off to war with our tax dollars and our neighbor's children than we have a higher obligation than if we are talking about some random conflict across the globe for which we have no connection.
Ken, I'm really wanting to understand the basis of this difference in thought here between you and Ken_Sylvania. If I may ask, am I understanding you correctly that your premise for this presumed higher obligation is fundamentally based on the concept of said war being funded with (specifically) OUR tax dollars, and that because they are somehow OUR dollars and we know they may be used to forward said conflict, then that concept of OUR ownership of said dollars obligates us to a higher obligation of compassion (whatever form that takes) toward those affected by said conflict rather than towards others not affected by that conflict? Is that a correct assessment of your position?
And IF that is the case, then:
A. at what point do those dollars cease to be OUR dollars and become "that which is Caesar's", if they were truly first OURS? and...
B. if we resist relinquishing any of "OUR" taxable dollars we know might go toward the use of force, or (specifically in the case mentioned above) toward war, and Caesar then takes them from us involuntarily, do you still posit that we still have a higher obligation toward one party than another?
I am simply saying that I believe "peacemaking" in the spirit of which Jesus was speaking in Matthew involves more than just simply evangelizing about Christ, or keeping peace between your neighbors. I believe it also means being a voice for ACTUAL PEACE in the real world. And I think that is the pretty mainstream Anabaptist belief as well given how many international aid organizations there are devoted to things like war relief and refugee resettlement and not just simply evangelism.
And I also believe our obligation is stronger here at home than in obscure distant conflicts with which we have no contact or influence. That doesn't mean I am arguing that we need to become government officials or diplomats or engage in government policy in any way. I never said that at all. I simply said that we should pay attention to what our society is doing, especially when it is beating the drums of war. And not just brush it off as "worldly affairs" that are none of our business as kingdom Christians, or whatever.
Take the example of the current potential conflict with Russia over Ukraine. If I am going to be a witness for peace of any kind through protest or silent opposition or calling my Congressman or speaking out in any way then I would suggest that my biggest responsibility is to speak to my own government which purports to represent me. I am not a citizen of Russia. I don't speak Russian. I have no connections to Russia. I'm not sure speaking out against Putin and Russia from my home here in the US carries any weight or effect. I think my greater obligation is to witness to my own government and witness for peace to my own society (my neighbors and community) where my words will have a greater impact. Biden may not listen to me anymore than Putin will. But Biden is the leader who claims to represent me, not Putin.
I think being a peacemaker in the world is an incredibly broad mandate and everyone needs to find their own path towards that end. I am not suggesting any particular path for anyone. The traditional Anabaptist path is to stand in opposition. I'm only suggesting that if we are interested in peace then we should also be paying attention to what our government and our society are doing on our behalf. And not brush off every conflict as simply "the affairs of man" that are of no concern for Christians.
0 x
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr
Ken wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 12:59 pmI'm not suggesting that you have the power to affect the course of global events or that you shouldn't pay your taxes. I'm only suggesting that if you profess to be a peacemaker then you should be paying attention when your nation is beating the drums of war and not brush it off as "the affairs of the world that have no affect on me"
I think this is the difference between people who have a strong non-resistance/two kingdom theology and everyone else.
Pacifists, peacekeepers, and war mongers all feel they need to pay attention and do something about it. Sometimes the pacifists efforts to "do something", ends up supporting guerilla efforts or the canned chicken ends up in the hands of the militants who are fighting the "peacekeepers".
In contrast, non-resistant/two kingdom theology folks have no need to pay attention to what their nation is doing, because their kingdom is not of this world. Their only focus is making sure their people understand the teachings of the New Testament so that they do not end up resisting flesh and blood. As they have means and opportunity, they send aid to people who suffer as a result of the war, particularly those of the household of faith. There have always been Christians who have taken this path and for two millennium, they have only done good for the suffering, and they have not gotten involved in resisting flesh and blood. The concern for us is to follow in this Christian heritage and make it easy for our children and grandchildren and many others to continue offering this alternative to a broken world.
I agree that we should care about all suffering. But I'm also saying that if it is our society marching off to war with our tax dollars and our neighbor's children than we have a higher obligation than if we are talking about some random conflict across the globe for which we have no connection.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this point.
I suppose if you are willing to agree to disagree, that is at least somewhat more charitable than your previous statement that my position makes me "not serious" and "dishonest."
I simply cannot see how a government, that has set itself up as ruling over me and the place where I live without my consent, has any right or authority to make me responsible for acts that it commits and acts that my neighbors' children commit without my approbation and indeed without my having any choice in the matter.
If a robber were to steel your wallet at gunpoint, then use your cash and your ID to buy explosives to bomb a public building, would you somehow have a higher obligation to those victims than you would if he stole your neighbor's cash and ID to do the same thing? It seems to me that you are saying that you would, but I have no idea why that would be.
Let's look at it a different way.
Sudsy (I think) upstream suggested that "peacemaking" is simply evangelism and nothing more. If that is also your view then fine. But if you think Jesus had something more expansive in mind when he commanded us to be peacemakers then I would suggest that this obligates us to be more than simply disengaged and disinterested every our nation or society engages in conflict.
Just to point out my last post when asked about the underlined I replied 'no' followed by an explanation. See previous post fwiw.
Josh wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 12:26 pm
There are some who try to live so poor that they don't pay any taxes so they don't fund wars. I respect this position, but it is one that is barely even possible to do anymore. I don't know a way to live so that I never end up paying any sales, property, income, or other taxes.
Income taxes are the ones that most directly fund war, and the easiest way to avoid them is with a full quiver.
When I was an unmarried man, they seemed like an approach that would not befit a Christian life.
Josh wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 12:26 pm
There are some who try to live so poor that they don't pay any taxes so they don't fund wars. I respect this position, but it is one that is barely even possible to do anymore. I don't know a way to live so that I never end up paying any sales, property, income, or other taxes.
Income taxes are the ones that most directly fund war, and the easiest way to avoid them is with a full quiver.
but eventually the gov wants to enlist your quiver into (gov care+ed) and the military, increasingly including girls.
Josh wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 12:26 pm
There are some who try to live so poor that they don't pay any taxes so they don't fund wars. I respect this position, but it is one that is barely even possible to do anymore. I don't know a way to live so that I never end up paying any sales, property, income, or other taxes.
Income taxes are the ones that most directly fund war, and the easiest way to avoid them is with a full quiver.
When I was an unmarried man, they seemed like an approach that would not befit a Christian life.
I wouldn't see a moral impediment to premarital adoption, though there are practical considerations that make it unwise for many people including myself.
Ken wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 12:19 pmI agree that we should care about all suffering. But I'm also saying that if it is our society marching off to war with our tax dollars and our neighbor's children than we have a higher obligation than if we are talking about some random conflict across the globe for which we have no connection.
Ken, I'm really wanting to understand the basis of this difference in thought here between you and Ken_Sylvania. If I may ask, am I understanding you correctly that your premise for this presumed higher obligation is fundamentally based on the concept of said war being funded with (specifically) OUR tax dollars, and that because they are somehow OUR dollars and we know they may be used to forward said conflict, then that concept of OUR ownership of said dollars obligates us to a higher obligation of compassion (whatever form that takes) toward those affected by said conflict rather than towards others not affected by that conflict? Is that a correct assessment of your position?
And IF that is the case, then:
A. at what point do those dollars cease to be OUR dollars and become "that which is Caesar's", if they were truly first OURS? and...
B. if we resist relinquishing any of "OUR" taxable dollars we know might go toward the use of force, or (specifically in the case mentioned above) toward war, and Caesar then takes them from us involuntarily, do you still posit that we still have a higher obligation toward one party than another?
I am simply saying that I believe "peacemaking" in the spirit of which Jesus was speaking in Matthew involves more than just simply evangelizing about Christ, or keeping peace between your neighbors. I believe it also means being a voice for ACTUAL PEACE in the real world. And I think that is the pretty mainstream Anabaptist belief as well given how many international aid organizations there are devoted to things like war relief and refugee resettlement and not just simply evangelism.
And I also believe our obligation is stronger here at home than in obscure distant conflicts with which we have no contact or influence. That doesn't mean I am arguing that we need to become government officials or diplomats or engage in government policy in any way. I never said that at all. I simply said that we should pay attention to what our society is doing, especially when it is beating the drums of war. And not just brush it off as "worldly affairs" that are none of our business as kingdom Christians, or whatever.
Take the example of the current potential conflict with Russia over Ukraine. If I am going to be a witness for peace of any kind through protest or silent opposition or calling my Congressman or speaking out in any way then I would suggest that my biggest responsibility is to speak to my own government which purports to represent me. I am not a citizen of Russia. I don't speak Russian. I have no connections to Russia. I'm not sure speaking out against Putin and Russia from my home here in the US carries any weight or effect. I think my greater obligation is to witness to my own government and witness for peace to my own society (my neighbors and community) where my words will have a greater impact. Biden may not listen to me anymore than Putin will. But Biden is the leader who claims to represent me, not Putin.
I think being a peacemaker in the world is an incredibly broad mandate and everyone needs to find their own path towards that end. I am not suggesting any particular path for anyone. The traditional Anabaptist path is to stand in opposition. I'm only suggesting that if we are interested in peace then we should also be paying attention to what our government and our society are doing on our behalf. And not brush off every conflict as simply "the affairs of man" that are of no concern for Christians.
Ken wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 12:59 pmI'm not suggesting that you have the power to affect the course of global events or that you shouldn't pay your taxes. I'm only suggesting that if you profess to be a peacemaker then you should be paying attention when your nation is beating the drums of war and not brush it off as "the affairs of the world that have no affect on me"
I think this is the difference between people who have a strong non-resistance/two kingdom theology and everyone else.
Pacifists, peacekeepers, and war mongers all feel they need to pay attention and do something about it. Sometimes the pacifists efforts to "do something", ends up supporting guerilla efforts or the canned chicken ends up in the hands of the militants who are fighting the "peacekeepers".
In contrast, non-resistant/two kingdom theology folks have no need to pay attention to what their nation is doing, because their kingdom is not of this world. Their only focus is making sure their people understand the teachings of the New Testament so that they do not end up resisting flesh and blood. As they have means and opportunity, they send aid to people who suffer as a result of the war, particularly those of the household of faith. There have always been Christians who have taken this path and for two millennium, they have only done good for the suffering, and they have not gotten involved in resisting flesh and blood. The concern for us is to follow in this Christian heritage and make it easy for our children and grandchildren and many others to continue offering this alternative to a broken world.
Ernie, how do you understand the past attempts of the Anabaptist tradition to influence public policy. For example, early Anabaptists were quite vocal with their civic leaders, exhorting them to follow the path of righteousness. Sattler famously spoke against the war with the Turks. My group appealed to the Confederacy for relief from conscription, the 1688 Germantown group joined with quakers in petition against slavery, between the world wars Mennonites appealed for alternative service from conscription. The Amish have fought various legal battles necessary for their culture and lifestyle, from traffic and public health law to private school. Were these attempts wrong or misguided?
barnhart wrote: ↑Sat Jan 29, 2022 7:49 amErnie, how do you understand the past attempts of the Anabaptist tradition to influence public policy. For example, early Anabaptists were quite vocal with their civic leaders, exhorting them to follow the path of righteousness. Sattler famously spoke against the war with the Turks. My group appealed to the Confederacy for relief from conscription, the 1688 Germantown group joined with quakers in petition against slavery, between the world wars Mennonites appealed for alternative service from conscription. The Amish have fought various legal battles necessary for their culture and lifestyle, from traffic and public health law to private school. Were these attempts wrong or misguided?
Appealing for yourself is different than attempting to influence public policy that controls others.
I would feel comfortable appealing that I shouldn't have to pay war taxes (although I don't bother to do this, mostly because I think it would fall on very deaf ears). I would not feel comfortable appealing that nobody anywhere should pay taxes that fund wars.
barnhart wrote: ↑Sat Jan 29, 2022 7:49 am
Ernie, how do you understand the past attempts of the Anabaptist tradition to influence public policy. For example, early Anabaptists were quite vocal with their civic leaders, exhorting them to follow the path of righteousness. Sattler famously spoke against the war with the Turks.
To add a bit of nuance to the history: I think you'll find that the civic leaders were addressed as individuals, with the emphasis on exhorting them personally rather than on influencing public policy (though that would have been an indirect result). Sattler is not the one who brought up the Turks; he was responding to a loaded question, and did so forthrightly even though it probably cost him his life. He answered the theological inquisition directly from the scriptures, so they couldn't make any of those charges stick, but the application of scriptural principles to politics (even though his answer was a personal response, rather than framed as public policy) could not be tolerated.