Mennonites and War

[Bootstrap]

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.

Just so I understand—does this mean that Mennodom and your church aren’t aware that Russia invaded Ukraine (not the other way around)? That Russia has bombed apartment buildings, hospitals, and civilian infrastructure—while Ukraine hasn’t done that to Russian cities? That Russia has forcibly taken large numbers of Ukrainian children, with credible reports of relocation or disappearance—and Ukraine has done nothing of the sort?

If we believe naming wrongdoing and condemning violence is important (as in paragraph 4), then these aren’t side issues. They’re exactly the kinds of painful truths that need to be named.

[Bootstrap]

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.

I think I like Neto's statement better. Probably because it takes out specific examples.

Thanks, Neto and Barnhardt—what you’ve raised is genuinely interesting and I want to learn from it.

I think you’re pointing to something important: the need to be careful how we name wrongdoing, especially in politically charged situations. It sounds like there’s a concern that if we only name one side’s sins, we risk sounding partisan—or morally lopsided. I get that.

At the same time, I don’t want the fear of imbalance to keep us from naming what’s real. When there’s clear evidence of atrocities—like bombed apartment buildings or abducted children—I think faithfulness means speaking plainly. These truths shouldn’t be buried in broader moral symmetry—real or imagined—imposed hypothetically just because we insist on believing it might be there.

So here’s my question to both of you: how do you think we should name evil faithfully, especially when one side is clearly doing most of the harm in a situation? What does it look like to speak the truth without falling into partisan traps—or into silence?

[Bootstrap]

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.

Thanks, JayP—I hear the concern behind what you’re saying, and I think it reflects something important: that we don’t get swept up in the logic of war, where the only options are to “pick a side” or stay silent.

But I also don’t think all Anabaptists or Mennonites share exactly the same view on what it means to be nonresistant or how to engage with conflict. And even the precise language—“pacifism,” “nonresistance,” “not taking sides”—gets used differently by different groups. So I’m not sure it’s as settled as you suggest. Sometimes I get the impression that anyone in a conflict is considered equally guilty, as a matter of principle—and that can be rough for victims. The phrase "blaming the victim" comes to mind.

I come from a tradition that puts a strong emphasis on helping refugees, bringing aid, making the suffering of victims visible. In most situations, the people doing the oppressing don’t need that kind of help—they’re the ones in control. It’s the victims who need advocates. And sometimes that means naming what’s happening to them, clearly and specifically.

Suppose the Old Testament prophets had refused to name names—had said, “Well, there’s wrongdoing on all sides, so we won’t speak to any one party.” Or suppose Jesus had avoided taking sides in his critiques of the Pharisees and their treatment of others. Would we still have Matthew 23 in our Bibles?

I agree with you that we’re not called to fix every conflict or run the world’s justice systems. But I think we are called to bear witness to truth, to stand with the vulnerable, and to speak when silence would protect powerful oppressors.

[Bootstrap]

Thought experiment. We have 329 pages, so far, discussing Russia's invasion of Ukraine in this thread:

viewtopic.php?f=24&t=4584

Please don't name names or say WHO is getting it right or wrong. Let's focus on what we believe and how we live it out here.

Starting from what you believe Mennonites should say and do, what do you personally think you should or should not be saying in a thread like that? What would be the purpose of reading or responding to that thread? What are the dangers?

Are there constructive ways to discuss that kind of issue?

How do your answers shed light on the paragraph in the OP, what you agree with and disagree with?

[ken_sylvania]

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.

Just so I understand—does this mean that Mennodom and your church aren’t aware that Russia invaded Ukraine (not the other way around)? That Russia has bombed apartment buildings, hospitals, and civilian infrastructure—while Ukraine hasn’t done that to Russian cities? That Russia has forcibly taken large numbers of Ukrainian children, with credible reports of relocation or disappearance—and Ukraine has done nothing of the sort?

If we believe naming wrongdoing and condemning violence is important (as in paragraph 4), then these aren’t side issues. They’re exactly the kinds of painful truths that need to be named.

I believe, and I think many of my brethren believe, that it was and is contrary to the teaching of Christ for Russia to invade Ukraine, bomb Ukrainian cities, and kidnap Ukrainian children. We also believe that it was and is contrary to the teaching of Christ for Ukraine to shoot and kill Russian soldiers, drop grenades on them from drones, invade Russian territory, and bomb Russian cities or infrastructure. I do not understand how any true follower of Christ can say that a person who does things contrary to Christ's teaching is on the "right" side. Suppose the Russians did do certain wrong things that Ukraine hasn't done - how does that make the wrongs of the Ukrainians "right"?

If you interpret paragraph 4 as saying that "naming wrongdoing is important" then I would say that you and I read paragraph 4 differently. I read it as acknowledging the extreme importance of refusing to join the cycle of violence (and in light of paragraph 1, that includes refusing to justify or condone violence of any kind, even defensive violence).

As I see it, if we can say "It is wrong for Russian soldiers to kill Ukrainian soldiers" but we are unable to also say "It is wrong for Ukrainian soldiers to kill Russian soldiers" then we are in fact joining the cycle of violence - we've taken sides in a conflict where neither side is Godly.

[Neto]

It may not be "obvious" to everyone, even here, so I don't expect everyone to agree, but while I see some things that Ukraine did that provoked Russia, I see Russia as the "wronger" one. I also would say that the 'provocation" did not justify, or excuse the invasion. (Basically I suspect that the "provocations" were not the real reason for the invasion, and I think that has come out over the years of this conflict - Russia, or at least President Putin, believes that "Ukraine belongs to Russia - all of it".)

I'd rather ask what good will God bring about as a result of this war. I don't know first hand how it's going along these lines, but I know that there are MB congregations in various states along the western shore that are some Ukrainian, and others Russian. God demonstrating brotherhood between those children of his in spite of what is going on in the secular world is what I expect to hear about. I mention this because I believe this is where non-participation in war and all of the hate that exists on the different sides really 'shines' - what it means to belong to a different Kingdom.

[barnhart]

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.

I think I like Neto's statement better. Probably because it takes out specific examples.

Thanks, Neto and Barnhardt—what you’ve raised is genuinely interesting and I want to learn from it.

I think you’re pointing to something important: the need to be careful how we name wrongdoing, especially in politically charged situations. It sounds like there’s a concern that if we only name one side’s sins, we risk sounding partisan—or morally lopsided. I get that.

At the same time, I don’t want the fear of imbalance to keep us from naming what’s real. When there’s clear evidence of atrocities—like bombed apartment buildings or abducted children—I think faithfulness means speaking plainly. These truths shouldn’t be buried in broader moral symmetry—real or imagined—imposed hypothetically just because we insist on believing it might be there.

So here’s my question to both of you: how do you think we should name evil faithfully, especially when one side is clearly doing most of the harm in a situation? What does it look like to speak the truth without falling into partisan traps—or into silence?

I think there is a place for that but statements about specific evils seem separate from general statements about war.

[JohnH]

Interesting responses—I'm glad I asked.

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?

Many of us are skeptical when the “aggressor” happens to be an enemy of the United States and the “attacked” happens to be an ally of the United States. Many of us don’t want to be stooges for U.S. foreign policy.

[JohnH]

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.

Just so I understand—does this mean that Mennodom and your church aren’t aware that Russia invaded Ukraine (not the other way around)? That Russia has bombed apartment buildings, hospitals, and civilian infrastructure—while Ukraine hasn’t done that to Russian cities? That Russia has forcibly taken large numbers of Ukrainian children, with credible reports of relocation or disappearance—and Ukraine has done nothing of the sort?

If we believe naming wrongdoing and condemning violence is important (as in paragraph 4), then these aren’t side issues. They’re exactly the kinds of painful truths that need to be named.

As a general rule, my church doesn’t try to adjudicate who is the “just” side in a war.

Most the impact on my church has been (a) completely destroying our Ukrainian churches, since every male of age has had to flee the country or face being drafted - and they do not honor COs, and (b) exterminating our church and missions in Russia, since Russia kicked foreign missionaries out and, likewise, the few men who were attending our churches in Russia also had to take steps to avoid conscription, although Russia is honoring COs (probably because Russia has way more manpower) so far.

As far as the membership goes, politically, most people would side with the general Western empire point of view, but we generally don’t like to express ourselves politically too much.

Both sides should lay down their arms and accept Christ’s gospel of peace.

[temporal1]

Josh:
.. As far as the membership goes, politically, most people would side with the general Western empire point of view, but we generally don’t like to express ourselves politically too much. ..

i have a sense there are now 2 Wests (i suspect Putin sees this, too, not sure) .. the “West” or as you word it, the “General West” and now, the “Left-West”. This seems true in the U.S. and Europe.

It may have been emerging longer, my guess is it was becoming distinct in 2008-2012-ish?
It became eye-popping to me when seeing Zelensky squirming in his seat when Trump counseled him to “find a path” to avoid war with Russia, but definitely seeing Z’s behavior when Russia invaded Russia.

This was not like genuine surprise attacks of Pearl Harbor or 9-11-2001. Or Oct 7, Israel.

Josh:
Both sides should lay down their arms and accept Christ’s gospel of peace.

amen