Peace and nonresistance: Mennonite COF 1995

[ken_sylvania]

I don't think this is intended to mean that we witness to all people of the need to repent and turn from all violence. The intent rather seems to be that we witness to the government and tell them which types of violent force are not acceptable (and, by implication, which forms of force are acceptable.)

I don’t see any evidence in the Confession that supports this interpretation. It simply says “We witness against”. There is a tension in Anabaptism with Romans 13. I think the CMC statement that OJ mentioned is the more common Mennonite approach. I think the COF 1995 interpretation of Romans 13 is a more recent development in contemporary Anabaptism but has some basis in early Anabaptism and church fathers.

I certainly could be interpreting it wrong.
As you see it, what is meant by the phrase "We witness against all forms of violence"? Does it mean we tell everyone including government officials that they must repent and turn from all violence? Or something different? Is the violent apprehension of a violent criminal one of the forms of violence that we witness against?

I think the tone of the 1995 COF has a different flavor compared with, say, the Schleitheim.

The Sword (Christian pacifism) – nonresistance
Violence must not be used in any circumstance. The way of nonviolence is patterned after the example of Christ who never exhibited violence in the face of persecution or as a punishment for sin. A Christian must love their enemies and pray for those who persecute them, as Jesus did. A Christian should not pass judgment in worldly disputes. It is not appropriate for a Christian to serve as a magistrate; a magistrate acts according to the rules of the world and uses force or orders force to be used, not acting according to the rules of heaven; their weapons are worldly, but the weapons of a Christian are spiritual.

[Ken]

I don't think this is intended to mean that we witness to all people of the need to repent and turn from all violence. The intent rather seems to be that we witness to the government and tell them which types of violent force are not acceptable (and, by implication, which forms of force are acceptable.)

I don’t see any evidence in the Confession that supports this interpretation. It simply says “We witness against”. There is a tension in Anabaptism with Romans 13. I think the CMC statement that OJ mentioned is the more common Mennonite approach. I think the COF 1995 interpretation of Romans 13 is a more recent development in contemporary Anabaptism but has some basis in early Anabaptism and church fathers.

I certainly could be interpreting it wrong.
As you see it, what is meant by the phrase "We witness against all forms of violence"? Does it mean we tell everyone including government officials that they must repent and turn from all violence? Or something different? Is the violent apprehension of a violent criminal one of the forms of violence that we witness against?

I think the tone of the 1995 COF has a different flavor compared with, say, the Schleitheim.

The Sword (Christian pacifism) – nonresistance
Violence must not be used in any circumstance. The way of nonviolence is patterned after the example of Christ who never exhibited violence in the face of persecution or as a punishment for sin. A Christian must love their enemies and pray for those who persecute them, as Jesus did. A Christian should not pass judgment in worldly disputes. It is not appropriate for a Christian to serve as a magistrate; a magistrate acts according to the rules of the world and uses force or orders force to be used, not acting according to the rules of heaven; their weapons are worldly, but the weapons of a Christian are spiritual.

The difference is that the Schleitheim Confession is focused on how individual Christians should act.

Whereas the 1995 COF is focused on Christians "witnessing" to the rest of the world about how it should act.

[cooper]

I certainly could be interpreting it wrong.
As you see it, what is meant by the phrase "We witness against all forms of violence"? Does it mean we tell everyone including government officials that they must repent and turn from all violence? Or something different? Is the violent apprehension of a violent criminal one of the forms of violence that we witness against?

Teaching against serving in law enforcement is a form of witness against the violent apprehension of a violent criminal, so yes. The Confession doesn’t prescribe how we witness against all forms of violence. The list of violence isn’t a comprehensive list of violence opposed. It is a fair question who decides what makes the list.

What does this witness against all violence look like? This gets worked out contextually.

I understand you would word it differently. And I think it’s fair to critique how some Mennonite churches are interpreting the confession but it seems there’s a lot being projected onto the confessions.

I think the 1995 Confession sees the government as evil but used by God to restrain worse evil. I could be wrong but believe this is similar to the view of (some?) at Followers of the Way.

[Pelerin]

As it’s actually used in Anabaptist circles, probably the best way to differentiate between “pacifism” and “nonresistance” is a sociological definition I think—we don’t go to war but we’re not like, say, those Vietnam War protesters. But there are a lot more implications riding on which term you use to describe yourself.

Most people would describe their nonresistance not just in terms of violence but also in things like refusing to sue, and accepting wrong done to them (it’s all part of the same passage) whereas pacifism doesn’t imply that. (As to whether the “pacifists” do actually hold to those things—more on that below.) While “pacifists” might be thought of as more actively peacemaking, I also know conservative “nonresistant” Anabaptists who would intervene in situations as they come before them (outside the church)—but wouldn’t go seeking them. A pacifist approach is happy to work as a power player whereas if you ask a nonresistant person about, say, voting or holding office, before long the answer will touch on nonresistance (whether yes or no).

So with that said, here’s some places where those difference show themselves in the CoF:

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.)

From there the focus moves to nonviolence and that seems to me to be where the MCUSA idea of “peace” is focused. I’ve written here before about my experience at a talk that was attended by a number of MCUSA pastors who had just gotten out of an acrimonious meeting. The Q&A time turned into a ridiculous spectacle where some of the pastors accused those who disagreed with them of “violence” (there was, in fact, no violence and the poor speaker handled the situation very well).

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?

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.

*It was based on some half-cooked theory about the cultural implications of being slapped on the right cheek as opposed to the left. Basically the sort Rube Goldberg stack of cultural inferences that preachers everywhere are fond of :)

[ken_sylvania]

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.

Yes, it is exactly by design. It's a document that lets traditionalists pretend that the church still believes the same old truths, while allowing activists to say that their activities align with official church doctrine.

[Soloist]

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.

Yes, it is exactly by design. It's a document that lets traditionalists pretend that the church still believes the same old truths, while allowing activists to say that their activities align with official church doctrine.

Sounds like the recent Catholic Church position on gender stuff.

[cooper]

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?

I don't know if there's anything more recent but The Use of the Law was written by MC General Assembly in 1981. It gives a framework to consider whether a lawsuit is ethical. It gives some allowance for lawsuits. Even among conservative Anabaptists, there isn't a consensus that lawsuits are never permissible. For example, Conestoga Wood Specialties (owned by conservative Mennonites) sued the Obama administration over the ACA mandate.

[Neto]

I admit that I feel a bit badly about picking this Confession of Faith apart like this. (I'm referring to my own participation in this.) I am probably considered an "extremist" in these matters - this whole deal about separation from the world's governmental and cultural structures. So keep that in mind in what I'm going to say now. Most of our congregations and groups are slipping into more and more involvement. I do not agree with the statement made by the group of my own heritage - the Mennonite Brethren. Certainly not the recent changes that were made on the article concerning "Peace and Nonresistance". Although the basic traditional viewpoints are still represented in it, it was significantly gutted by making it a "matter of individual conscience". (I don't have it open in front of me, nor have I read it recently, not since it was changed some years ago, so this isn't the exact wording.) I just know that if the MB statement was the one being analyzed here, it would also come up lacking. The direction it has taken IS different than the MC-USA one here considered - rather than moving in the direction of the political left, it moves in the direction of the political right, justifying involvement in police work, etc. So the criticisms would be different, but over-all it also reflects a shift in conviction. I look at our history as Plautdietsch Mennonites, and I see the errors of our past being repeated. (Not the Czar this time, but "America".) Can we not learn from the sins of the past?

[barnhart]

Like Neto, I think it is easy to pick apart any statement of doctrine and practice. I remember reading through Daniel Kaufman's Doctrines of the Bible and noticing that the people who wrote it and publish it no longer believe it. This gave me pause because the people reading and believing it now, have many of the same goals and motives as the writers. It caused me to be a little suspicious of reliance on written statements.

[Ernie]

Like Neto, I think it is easy to pick apart any statement of doctrine and practice. I remember reading through Daniel Kaufman's Doctrines of the Bible and noticing that the people who wrote it and publish it no longer believe it. This gave me pause because the people reading and believing it now, have many of the same goals and motives as the writers. It caused me to be a little suspicious of reliance on written statements.

I get your point.

Many of the writings and positions of Anabaptists in the past are no longer appreciated by the organizations that published them.
Some of the most well written pieces are still used by conservative Anabaptists today.
However, it was because of this very issue that many Mennonites in the 60's and 70's withdrew from those conferences. As the former organizations began changing positions, this alarmed various segments of the conference, and these segments withdrew in order to maintain their former way of life and thought.

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".