Augustinians and War

[barnhart]

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.

Yes, but even this doesn't square with Ernie's silence approach. I heard his position articulated growing up, but I have developed some suspicion toward it, but I don't have a carefully considered alternative. To my thinking it leans too much into silence and passivity. Both have their place from time to time, but they do not summarize the role God intends for the church in society.

[Josh]

Yes, but even this doesn't square with Ernie's silence approach. I heard his position articulated growing up, but I have developed some suspicion toward it, but I don't have a carefully considered alternative. To my thinking it leans too much into silence and passivity. Both have their place from time to time, but they do not summarize the role God intends for the church in society.

In my experience, present-day plain people tend to lean into inaction and silence a little bit too much, particularly when dealing with rotten sin within their own midst. When dealing with a chronic abuser, for example, they often encourage the abused person to be silent and they themselves often choose to be inactive. God never called his people to be this way.

[Ken]

Yes, but even this doesn't square with Ernie's silence approach. I heard his position articulated growing up, but I have developed some suspicion toward it, but I don't have a carefully considered alternative. To my thinking it leans too much into silence and passivity. Both have their place from time to time, but they do not summarize the role God intends for the church in society.

In my experience, present-day plain people tend to lean into inaction and silence a little bit too much, particularly when dealing with rotten sin within their own midst. When dealing with a chronic abuser, for example, they often encourage the abused person to be silent and they themselves often choose to be inactive. God never called his people to be this way.

On one level the Bible is essentially an instruction manual on both what TO DO and what NOT TO DO in one's life.

At the risk of a really broad generalization, liberal groups probably focus too much on the former and conservative groups focus too much on the latter.

[Sudsy]

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.

Yes, but even this doesn't square with Ernie's silence approach. I heard his position articulated growing up, but I have developed some suspicion toward it, but I don't have a carefully considered alternative. To my thinking it leans too much into silence and passivity. Both have their place from time to time, but they do not summarize the role God intends for the church in society.

I tend to believe that God does use believers in His plans for the benefits of a society. However, I believe the main role we have is to represent and do our part in making disciples as this mission results in eternal consequences not just temporal ones. I think of the SA, Salvation Army, especially and how they are such a benefit in society in feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, etc. as Jesus desired His followers to do. And as the SA has demonstrated this can be done outside of government influence. However, I don't think the founder of the SA would be too pleased today with how the SA has, to some degree, lost it's eternal perspective, and is primarily known for it's social assistance and not the salvation of souls.

I currently have made a Salvation Army Corps in Newfoundland as my home on-line church as each week are doing all the various assistance work the SA is known for and are seeing souls saved every Sunday through their world wide Youtube meetings. I think General Booth, their founder, would be quite pleased with this ministry.

Regarding social programs, I participate in a small community service bringing shut-ins their main meal (Meals-on-Wheels). This service is not an 'evangelical' effort and no specific church is linked to this service. I believe we are to be involved in such good efforts and that Jesus would approve of them.

I think the problem with getting overly involved in government run programs and in persuading them to do more 'Christian' activities, we can lose an eternal perspective on what we are primarily to be involved in. As my father often preached 'what shall it profit a man if he gain the whole world and lose his soul or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul ?'

God does use believers in temporal ways to bring about certain things in a society in His timing. And Jesus showed us to be very much engaged with sinners for their salvation and identified the various means to this end.

I guess I might have wandered off topic again but I believe Jesus example was far from being 'the quiet in the land'. I want nothing to do with worldly wars as we have our hands full if we are really engaged in spiritual warfare to bring down strongholds so people will come to the Lord. One area we need to keep working on is the warring amongst believers that chases folks away from God more than it does to bring them to God.

This type of 'inhouse warring' with each other and lack of active concern for the lost are the two main disappointments I have with much of Anabaptist Christianity. I think some Anabaptists see the flaws in the kind of gospel being presented by certain Evangelicals and don't want to go that route just to get numbers. That, to me, is a good start. Now we need some Anabaptists to lead the way to breakaway from hindering traditions and go to war putting on spiritual armor and being revived to our first love to reach the lost.

I guess the Anabaptism, Be In Christ, Meeting House in Toronto with their 19 satellite churches appeals most to me although at present their teaching pastor Bruxy Cavey is placed on a leave of absence pending investigations on certain allegations. This Anabaptist group would be quite a stretch for most of the Mennonites in our city. Bruxy in Toronto and Greg Boyd, in St.Paul Minnesota are more along the Anabaptist teachings I enjoy most.

Well, better quit drifting off again into other topics. Carry on.

[Ernie]

Yes, but even this doesn't square with Ernie's silence approach. I heard his position articulated growing up, but I have developed some suspicion toward it, but I don't have a carefully considered alternative. To my thinking it leans too much into silence and passivity. Both have their place from time to time, but they do not summarize the role God intends for the church in society.

What is my silence approach?

[barnhart]

What is my silence approach?

Fair question. It was my summary of what I heard when you wrote that kingdom believers "have no need to pay attention to what their nation is doing."

[Ernie]

I'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?

Anabaptists have been all over the map from the violent Munsterites to the Old Order "quiet in the land".

I hear Ken saying in this thread that Anabaptists should be right there when anything new is going on politically and insert themselves right into the middle of it. I'm not opposed to somebody doing this, but I certainly don't think it is necessary that most or all Christians should be doing this. Should some be doing this??? I don't know that I care one way or the other.

When we are called before kings and governors, we are promised that God will tell us what we should speak. We can tell professing Christian kings that we do not think we should resist Muslims should they try to take over our country, just like Michael Sattler told the authorities. We can express to both Protestants and Catholics authorities (just like thousands of our Anabaptist forefathers did in the early centuries) how they give Christianity a bad reputation whenever they take up the sword,
Should we petition? I would only be comfortable doing so if I was petitioning alongside of other godly, charactered, principled people.
Should we appeal? I think appealing in a good spirit is definitely in order.
Should we be willing to go to prison in order to have private schools? I'm glad for people who have done this. I hope I would have been just as brave had it been my children's future at stake.
Should we use attorneys to help us have the right to drive horses or outhouses? I can't relate to that one so I don't know what to say about this.
Should we offer to do alternative service (even ahead of war times) to make the government happy with us so they won't send us to war. Seems like a novel idea. I know that many young men lost their faith in 1W service and thousands of their descendants are not following Jesus today. The US government would likely have granted conscientious objector status, without the Mennonite church offering to perform 1W service, in an effort to make themselves more appreciated by the US government. Some churches and pastors and parents worked hard at providing godly environments for their young men during 1W service and this is commendable.

[Ernie]

What is my silence approach?

Fair question. It was my summary of what I heard when you wrote that kingdom believers "have no need to pay attention to what their nation is doing."

Our family runs a news business and we keep about 3500 Anabaptist households updated with the news. So I am not opposed at all to paying attention to what our nation and other nations are doing. That is how we make our livelihood. But I don't believe that we "need to pay attention." But if we are going to pay attention, lets listen to "pundits" who are helping us stay emotionally uninvolved, so that we can stay focused on changing the world the same way Jesus did. Jesus motto here on earth seemed to be, "Preach the Gospel (through deeds) and if possible, include words!"

[barnhart]

Thanks Ernie, I don't have a considered view on this, that's why I pushed back on you a little, to see what you have to offer. For the record, I don't vote nor do I recommend it for believers, but Im also a little uncomfortable with a theology of public engagement that trends toward passivity or silence, or maybe worse, one that allows petition of authority for self benefit but disallows it for the benefit of others. I can see room for a lot of variation on the theme of being salt and light, but both of those analogies seem to prioritize being unavoidable in society. Thus I get uncomfortable with a theology that leans toward silence.

Btw, I like your characterization of the dangers of public engagement from the left and right.

[Ken]

Anabaptists have been all over the map from the violent Munsterites to the Old Order "quiet in the land".

I hear Ken saying in this thread that Anabaptists should be right there when anything new is going on politically and insert themselves right into the middle of it. I'm not opposed to somebody doing this, but I certainly don't think it is necessary that most or all Christians should be doing this. Should some be doing this??? I don't know that I care one way or the other.

I don't think this is what I'm saying.

What I think I am saying we should not be willfully ignorant of what our government is doing in our name. And when those moments come when there are true choices between war and peace we should not simply look away and pretend it is none of our business. But such moments really only happen once or twice in a generation. The Civil War, the World Wars, Korea and Vietnam. The more recent conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. And now potentially Ukraine. What that means for any one person or church is going to be different. Some may join in peaceful protest. Others may work to assist and resettle refugees. Others may work on relief missions to bring aid or medical assistance. Maybe you support an organization that works with homeless vets who have been damaged by war to bring some peace back into their lives. The choices are endless. When your nation is at war, what are you going to do to be a peacemaker?

That is completely different from actively engaging in partisan politics or directly engaging in government or even being political at all. I'm not naïve enough to think that any of us individually or collectively are going to change the course of world events. But when the world is in conflict I do think Jesus is calling us to do our own small part to bring peace. And I think that calling goes beyond simple evangelism or simply living quietly in the land as an example. I think it is an active obligation. He does not call us to simply live peacefully. He calls us to be peacemakers.