In another thread, someone asked if this really characterizes what Mennonites believe about war. Does it?
Tell me both:
1. Whether it corresponds to the official teaching of your branch of Mennodom, and
2. Whether you agree with it.
Discussion is encouraged. Don't tear others down for their beliefs.
As Mennonites, we don't believe in "just war" theory. We don't divide wars into good ones and bad ones, or believe that violence becomes righteous if the cause is. We’re called to a different path—to reject violence, even when others see it as justified.
But that doesn’t mean we pretend all violence is equal. Saying Russia and Ukraine are two sides of the same coin is like saying Hamas and Israeli civilians on October 7 were two sides of the same coin. In both cases, one side carried out a brutal and unjustified attack; the other was attacked. That doesn't make the victims—or their governments—blameless. But it does mean the situations aren’t morally equivalent.
The same goes for Gaza now. Hamas committed atrocities. So has the Israeli military. Thousands of civilians in Gaza have been killed—many of them children. That should break our hearts. We don't need to excuse or justify any side to grieve the victims or call the violence what it is: evil.
Refusing to participate in war doesn’t mean refusing to name wrongdoing. It means refusing to join the cycle. We can condemn all violence without pretending all sides are the same. And we can mourn every victim without denying the difference between an aggressor and the attacked.
1 x
1. Are we discussing the topic? Good.
2. Are we going around and around in a fight? Let's stop doing that.
3. Is there some serious wrongdoing or relational injury? Let's address that, probably not in public and certainly not for show.
I'm not sure if our congregation would agree with all of the quotation, or not. And if not, which parts. I agree with some of it, but not sure I could endorse the complete statement.
I am somewhat of an odd-ball both here, and in our congregation (and in Holmes County as well, I suppose). So I can only speak for myself.
I would say the following: Like the people and the prophets of the Old Testament period, I recognize that there are, to some degree, the 'good guys' and the 'bad guys' in most violent conflicts or wars. I do not participate, but when the righteous are saved, I rejoice. I also recognize that our own battle, at least for this era of time, is to limit our 'warfare' to the spiritual world. At this time we keep that separate from evil people, but I see prophecies which suggest that the physical and the spiritual warfare may again be melded into a single conflict, as it often was in the OT period.
Take it with a grain of salt. As I said, I'm an odd-ball.
Ironically, although no longer identifying as an anabaptist, I think some of you have made some mistakes in this thread.
Saying you do not believe in war, or just war theory, may align with non resistance. But non resistance is not pacifism because it is supposed to be just not the refusal to fight, but even taking sides. I believe a historical view of anabaptism does NOT call on you to referee situations like the Russia-Ukraine conflict or the Middle East conflicts. Because war leads to evil all around.
Anabaptists are not called to fix every problem in the world. You need not side with this side because neither is wholly right. One side might be far more right than the other, but you cannot participate in any way. Any way means not just avoiding physical conflict.
Bootstrap wrote: ↑Tue Aug 05, 2025 4:42 pm
In another thread, someone asked if this really characterizes what Mennonites believe about war. Does it?
Tell me both:
1. Whether it corresponds to the official teaching of your branch of Mennodom, and
2. Whether you agree with it.
Discussion is encouraged. Don't tear others down for their beliefs.
As Mennonites, we don't believe in "just war" theory. We don't divide wars into good ones and bad ones, or believe that violence becomes righteous if the cause is. We’re called to a different path—to reject violence, even when others see it as justified.
But that doesn’t mean we pretend all violence is equal. Saying Russia and Ukraine are two sides of the same coin is like saying Hamas and Israeli civilians on October 7 were two sides of the same coin. In both cases, one side carried out a brutal and unjustified attack; the other was attacked. That doesn't make the victims—or their governments—blameless. But it does mean the situations aren’t morally equivalent.
The same goes for Gaza now. Hamas committed atrocities. So has the Israeli military. Thousands of civilians in Gaza have been killed—many of them children. That should break our hearts. We don't need to excuse or justify any side to grieve the victims or call the violence what it is: evil.
Refusing to participate in war doesn’t mean refusing to name wrongdoing. It means refusing to join the cycle. We can condemn all violence without pretending all sides are the same. And we can mourn every victim without denying the difference between an aggressor and the attacked.
Neither Mennodom nor my own church has an official teaching on who is the “right” side in the Russia/Ukraine conflict, so strike paragraphs 2 and 3; paragraphs 1 and 4 would fit.
You don't remember replying to that post less than 24 hours ago?
yes. i’m not that far gone. yet. i admit, i’m worried, tho.
my question wasn’t about what Mennonites believe about war. i wondered if someone had asked.
my question wasn’t a question. probably more a statement about plural pronouns.
this?
i don’t refer to you to speak for Mennonites as a whole.
0 x
i’m perfectly comfortable with an older, wiser, more docile Trump.
”Try hard not to offend. Try harder not to be offended.” Robert Martz
Here’s something I’m still trying to understand. Several people expressed appreciation for the first and fourth paragraphs in the OP, but not for the examples in the middle. The fourth paragraph talks about naming wrongdoing and grieving all victims. But how can we do that without naming specific events or actions—like the ones in the middle paragraphs?
It seems like people resonate with the principle, but get uncomfortable when it’s time to apply it. If we’re serious about naming evil, doesn’t that include specific, painful truths? How else can we name it—without being specific?
2 x
1. Are we discussing the topic? Good.
2. Are we going around and around in a fight? Let's stop doing that.
3. Is there some serious wrongdoing or relational injury? Let's address that, probably not in public and certainly not for show.
i admit, i’m worried, tho. 