Farewell MC-USA: Mosaic's Departure from the Denomination

[Bootstrap]

…I don't believe everything I read in The Martyr's Mirror.

I’m curious what part of the Martyr’s Mirror is fake news.

Here's one thing: if you read the descriptions of early groups like the Donatists, it gives the impression that they were more or less precursors to the Anabaptists, focused on a lot of the same things. I'm not at all sure that's true. In general, it doesn't say what sources it is using for its history.

I think this is just one example of something that affects the historical part of the book quite a bit. And many Mennonite / Anabaptist histories do the same thing, reading back our own traditions into the past, projecting ourselves onto earlier movements that were often quite different from our own.

[Bootstrap]

It turns out I did make that last part up. I just checked Eire's book [i"Reformation"s[/i] and he lists both Marpeck and Balthasar Hubmaier as "Magisterial Anabaptists"; those that believed it was incumbent upon the Christian to engage in civil society and steer it toward's justice. Marpeck opposed all use of violence whereas Hubmaier did not...his followers were sometimes called the schwertler "sword carriers". Eire goes on to say that while Marpeck clearly did not have as much influence over the trajectory of Anabaptism as Sattler, Schleithem and the Swiss Brethren did; he has come to influence the 20th Century Mennonites who have become more politically and socially engaged.

This is the way I understood it. For me, this does not mean joining political parties or seeing the world primarily through a political lens. And I don't think it did for Marpeck.

Sattler, Schleitheim, and the Hutterite understanding of Gelassenheit took things in a direction that is different from Menno Simons, and different from any group I have been part of.

Related: A lot of the early Anabaptist leaders were educated people who lived in cities, at least until driven out by persecution. It was not a separatist movement. And that's where civil engagement comes in. And valuing education, especially a thorough and educated understanding of the Bible, seeking to apply it practically to the way we live our lives today.

Just look at all the Scripture references on any page of most things Menno Simons wrote for an example of what I am thinking of.

[Bootstrap]

How might a person be involved or engaged in civil politics in ways that do not involve coercion?

We can plead with Caesar to do what is right and just, to defend orphans and widows and refugees, etc. We do not bear the sword, we cannot coerce Caesar to do so.

Yes, Caesar does use coercion. Romans 13 tells us that Caesar is God's servant. I think we can offer advice to God's servant. Even a servant who bears the sword. If God has appointed Caesar to restrain the wrongdoer, who am I to argue? Why is it wrong to advise Caesar not to abuse this authority, to seek justice rather than injustice? You seem to be saying we cannot offer Caesar this advice because Caesar uses coercion. Is there something in the Bible that says that?

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer.

[Szdfan]

If this position does not require the person to issue fines or help make laws punishable by fines or jail time, then I would be fine with a Christian having this position or even voting for someone to hold this position.

What's the difference between coercion from civil government and coercion from the church?

One of the big differences is that the church doesn't kill people or put them in jail. Nor does the church confiscate people's houses or bank accounts.

But the church can shun or excommunicate people as a form of discipline, which is also a form of coercion.

[Ken]

The County Engineer is sometimes an elected position and focuses on things like drainage, flooding, road repairs and so on.

If this position does not require the person to issue fines or help make laws punishable by fines or jail time, then I would be fine with a Christian having this position or even voting for someone to hold this position.

Do you believe in abolishing the police, jails, courts, and rule of law?

Or do you just want only non-Christians to operate all of those things?

[Josh]

What's the difference between coercion from civil government and coercion from the church?

One of the big differences is that the church doesn't kill people or put them in jail. Nor does the church confiscate people's houses or bank accounts.

But the church can shun or excommunicate people as a form of discipline, which is also a form of coercion.

We are opposed to violent coercion since it relies on the threat of killing people. Obviously some “coercion” is necessary. I would grab a child’s hand who runs into a street despite being told not to when cars are coming.

[temporal1]

P.5 / Coercion:

Here is an example of why I think using Marpeck as a role model for political involvement is a stretch and even unfair...

Klassen observes that:
Marpeck believed that the church must exist as a social structure in tension with the state. When it was suggested to him that a community which rejects the basis of power on which the state rests, in fact challenges the legitimacy of the state, he replied that obedience to God is more important than obedience to Caesar. Both he and his colleague Scharnschlager, held the position that even if Anabaptists were to become a majority, they would not force their faith on others.

Faith must come out of the willingness of the individual to accept it and coercion has no role in promoting faith.

Engaging in politics is forcing the minority to do what the majority wants done,*
and that is the exact opposite of what Marpeck believed and taught.

Someone should write an article about the moderate and progressive attempts at revisionist history, in which they make Marpeck out to be a supporter of their rightwing and leftwing political involvements.

“Coercion” is a key word. Worth thoughtfulness.

On MD, i had a light-bulb moment when reading Wayne’s words wrt government, “by force of the sword.”

That’s it.
Everything gov does, literally, is backed by force of the sword, the state, no matter how desirable, beneficial, necessary ..
whether jay-walking, sales tax, city utilities, ultimately, gov rules by force of the sword.

As for civil engineering and even railways .. i hate to break it to ya .. most of these great projects, definitely the Roman Roads, as example, were not built to serve households, the unemployed, widows+orphans, or any such. The biggest advances in human tech and medicine, come from needs of war, response to war. Also, profit, i.e., to serve industry, which is hard to separate from war.

It’s hard to be a purist on earth.

We ordinary people have become spoiled by so much comfort, choice, freedom and power in life, even literacy, i believe all this is a world historical anomaly. No guarantee it will last. So many seem to be rushing to give it away.

- - - - - - -

Ernie:
.. Engaging in politics is forcing the minority to do what the majority wants done,* ..

If i understand, this describes literal democracy, a word used frivolously and in strange ways today.

Those reciting “democracy, democracy” could exchange the words, “socialism, communism, Marxism” to be more honest/accurate.
Today’s dominant politics are fueled by politically ORGANIZED minorities, lobbies, billionaires, who have no margin of tolerance.
It’s not democracy. It is by force of the sword.

“Take heed.” They are “as serious as a heart attack,” as some might describe it.

- - - - - - -

(i believe) Christians are easily confused because Jesus Christ perfectly embodied social consciousness,
He did not conflate it with “by force of the sword.”

He could have! How efficient He could have been! He didn’t. We struggle.

imho, the human longing for EFFICIENCY is a false god.

[Szdfan]

One of the big differences is that the church doesn't kill people or put them in jail. Nor does the church confiscate people's houses or bank accounts.

But the church can shun or excommunicate people as a form of discipline, which is also a form of coercion.

We are opposed to violent coercion since it relies on the threat of killing people. Obviously some “coercion” is necessary. I would grab a child’s hand who runs into a street despite being told not to when cars are coming.

A fine is also not violent coercion. The state doesn't threaten to kill people for not paying their speeding tickets.

[Josh]

But the church can shun or excommunicate people as a form of discipline, which is also a form of coercion.

We are opposed to violent coercion since it relies on the threat of killing people. Obviously some “coercion” is necessary. I would grab a child’s hand who runs into a street despite being told not to when cars are coming.

A fine is also not violent coercion. The state doesn't threaten to kill people for not paying their speeding tickets.

The penalty for traffic infractions here is a fine or 30 days imprisonment.

Not paying fines will eventually result in seizure of property and money and seizure of wages, so effectively servitude.

[Bootstrap]

Here is an example of why I think using Marpeck as a role model for political involvement is a stretch and even unfair...

I replied to that in another thread that is devoted largely to precisely this kind of question:

viewtopic.php?p=243769#p243769

The current thread has opened up so many issues that it's hard to discuss any of them in depth here.