Peace and nonresistance: Mennonite COF 1995

[ken_sylvania]

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.

One of the things written statements can do for us is serve as markers that we can look back on and realize how our beliefs have actually changed. They won't magically keep us from changing but it at least puts some sand in the gears of revisionist history.

[Ken]

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?

Honestly, if you do a close reading of the entire 1995 CoF you will find that sort of vague wiggle room language littered throughout it. Kind of like they are trying to please everyone by not explicitly coming down one way or the other on an issue. For example, read the section on creation and try to decide what exact creation narrative is being supported. The literal young earth narrative, some form of scientific creationism, or ordinary evolution guided in some way by God. Or read the section on marriage and try to discern a specific position on divorce.

[Neto]

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".

Barnhart,
I remember how "excited" I was when I found a copy of that book in a second-hand store. I have long been curious to read the Swiss Brethren writings. I wrote to an Old Order Amish book store back in early 81, asking for information on writings of Jacob Ammon. (They sent me a small tract called "Why we were the beard". I still have it someplace here, and that book store is actually not far from where we live now. At that time, I had only driven through Ohio. I got their address from some Swartzentruber people in northwestern PA, while visiting friends in the Jamestown, NY area. This Amishman had located my friend's dad's well site for him.)

Anyway, Kaufman's book. I was sorely disappointed, because it reads pretty much like the Systematic Theologies I had already studied (and rejected) in the "Evangelical" Bible college where I attended.

Ernie,
I wonder if our children aren't going more by what they see than by what they hear. However, the pull of the world is intense. It was only through personal Bible study that I myself wrenched free of the patriotism I had absorbed, someplace. Maybe for me it was in public school, but I'm guessing that many of the young people you are referring to received the same teaching both in church services, and in the church school. I have mentioned this before, but the one really odd thing about what my thinking during my "patriotism period" is that I still 'knew' that the American flag did not belong in the church meeting house. (I was the church janitor during HS, and I 'hid' that flag on multiple occasions, leaving only the 'Christian flag' up front in the 'sanctuary'.)

[barnhart]

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".

This is worth thinking about. In general Mennonite churches are not that good at communicating their story, beyond why we believe and practice as we do. I think it needs to include a component of how we got here and where we hope to go.

[Josh]

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".

This is worth thinking about. In general Mennonite churches are not that good at communicating their story, beyond why we believe and practice as we do. I think it needs to include a component of how we got here and where we hope to go.

Part of what I’ve observed, like Ernie, is that those who do a good job communicating it seem to have far more problems actually living it out and persuading the next generation to do it too.

Those who barely communicate it at all often hold to the best and purest forms of Anabaptism. Witness the Swartzentrubers, who won’t even defend themselves in traffic court. Yet all they preach is the Sermon on the Mount over and over.

[Bootstrap]

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.

Again, the biblical word is "peace". I think the COF did well to use it. And I do think people mean different things by terms like "nonresistance" and "pacifism", so that can lead to confusion.

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).

When Jesus marched to Jerusalem, he was very much setting up a confrontation with the authorities. But the Bible is also clear that believers should not sue other believers. It doesn't say what we should do if sued by a nonbeliever, I don't think.

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.)

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

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).

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.

[Bootstrap]

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?

[Josh]

I would be comfortable with a lawsuit like that, but plainer groups like most Amish would not be. I feel like we may have something to learn from their example.

[Bootstrap]

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?

[Ken]

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".

This is worth thinking about. In general Mennonite churches are not that good at communicating their story, beyond why we believe and practice as we do. I think it needs to include a component of how we got here and where we hope to go.

Part of what I’ve observed, like Ernie, is that those who do a good job communicating it seem to have far more problems actually living it out and persuading the next generation to do it too.

Those who barely communicate it at all often hold to the best and purest forms of Anabaptism. Witness the Swartzentrubers, who won’t even defend themselves in traffic court. Yet all they preach is the Sermon on the Mount over and over.

Do you really consider the Swartzentrubers to be the "best and purest" form of Anabaptism? 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 recognize 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 in an archaic language.