Mennonites and War

[Neto]

Boot, thank you for your response.


I think the foundation of conservative Anabaptists is in part the view on how being part of the government is incompatible with the Kingdom of God.

I will not assume that everyone here will necessarily agree, but I would personally add that if it is not God's will that we live in union with the affairs of the State, then his desire is the same for all who repent. So I think that Ken S. is correct in saying that we ought to urge those who are in such a position to repent of that as well, and turn away from it.

I would add that this kind of admonition at least usually assumes an opportunity to do so in a personal and friendly manner, as a part of a larger conversation (discipleship). I do not think that leading with that advice is beneficial to their soul. But there IS a cost of following Christ, and I do not think that it is wise (or even kind) to withhold that information from any believer.

[Bootstrap]

I would recommend to President Zelensky that he repent and believe the Gospel, and turn away from clinging to power as a ruler of this world. I would recommend to President Trump that he repent of his sins, beg God for forgiveness, and practice purity, honesty, holiness and amendment of life.

Ken, can I ask—do you think either of them is likely to actually do what you're recommending? Or is this more of a hypothetical to clarify your convictions?

I ask because I often wonder what faithfulness looks like when we’re not speaking to Caesar, but to one another. Most of us don’t have a platform to call world leaders to repentance. But we do have the calling to live faithfully ourselves, to bear witness to the Kingdom, and to care for those wounded by the powers of this world.

[Bootstrap]

I'm curious why you would urge President Zelenskyy to "repent and believe the Gospel, and turn away from clinging to power as a ruler of this world", but not President Trump. (I think that that is good advice for any political leader. The main point of the passage about how to pray for 'kings and rulers" appears to me to be that God desires all humankind to come to repentance, and be saved; that God does not desire that anyone would perish in sin.)

I'm also curious about the advice you would give to Ukranians in the midst of this war.

Should they surrender to Putin?

[GaryK]

I would recommend to President Zelensky that he repent and believe the Gospel, and turn away from clinging to power as a ruler of this world. I would recommend to President Trump that he repent of his sins, beg God for forgiveness, and practice purity, honesty, holiness and amendment of life.

Ken, can I ask—do you think either of them is likely to actually do what you're recommending? Or is this more of a hypothetical to clarify your convictions?

I ask because I often wonder what faithfulness looks like when we’re not speaking to Caesar, but to one another. Most of us don’t have a platform to call world leaders to repentance. But we do have the calling to live faithfully ourselves, to bear witness to the Kingdom, and to care for those wounded by the powers of this world.

Whether or not they are likely to do what ken_sylvania is recommending is sort of beside the point, isn't it? Our calling is to call all men, including worldly leaders, to leave the kingdoms of the world and join Jesus' Kingdom whenever we have the opportunity. What they do from there, is up to them.

[GaryK]

I'm curious why you would urge President Zelenskyy to "repent and believe the Gospel, and turn away from clinging to power as a ruler of this world", but not President Trump. (I think that that is good advice for any political leader. The main point of the passage about how to pray for 'kings and rulers" appears to me to be that God desires all humankind to come to repentance, and be saved; that God does not desire that anyone would perish in sin.)

I'm also curious about the advice you would give to Ukranians in the midst of this war.

Should they surrender to Putin?

Are you asking about the Ukrainian government or Ukrainian individuals?

[Ernie]

XIII. Of the Office of the Secular Authority
We believe and confess that God has ordained power and authority, and set them to punish the evil, and protect the good, to govern the world, and maintain countries and cities, with their subjects, in good order and regulation; and that we, therefore, may not despise, revile, or resist the same, but must acknowledge and honor them as the ministers of God, and be subject and obedient unto them, yea, ready for all good works, especially in that which is not contrary to the law, will, and commandment of God; also faithfully pay custom, tribute, and taxes, and to render unto them their dues, even also as the Son of God taught and practiced, and commanded His disciples to do; that we, moreover, must constantly and earnestly pray to the Lord for them and their welfare, and for the prosperity of the country, that we may dwell under its protection, earn our livelihood, and lead a quiet, peaceable life, with all godliness and honesty; and, furthermore, that the Lord would recompense unto them, here, and afterwards in eternity, all benefits, liberty, and favor which we enjoy here under their praiseworthy administration.

I think that being advocates of individuals/leaders repenting is appropriate. Expecting their office to act Christlike is unrealistic.

This is directed at anyone, do you agree or disagree with the bolded?

I think that part goes beyond Scripture and seems very much like asking the Lord for something well beyond anything that He has promised.

I agree.

[GaryK]

I think that being advocates of individuals/leaders repenting is appropriate. Expecting their office to act Christlike is unrealistic.

This is directed at anyone, do you agree or disagree with the bolded?

I think that part goes beyond Scripture and seems very much like asking the Lord for something well beyond anything that He has promised.

I agree.

I had forgotten that part until it was brought up here. I always found that part a bit troubling.

[Neto]

So I don't think Paul and Agrippa tells us that we should ask authorities to repent of being authorities. And even if they did, someone else would take their place. Someone will rule a nation.

I have at least two objections to this line of argument. First, to assume that because there is no record that Paul asked Agrippa to step down from being king that therefore being king is compatible with being a Christian, is really quite wild. Using the same logic, we would have to conclude that if Agrippa had become a Christian it would have been entirely OK for him to continue his incestuous relationship with Bernice, because Paul didn't explicitly condemn that either.
Equally untenable is the idea that it's OK for Christians to be in positions of worldly power because somebody else would do it if they stepped down. It's like saying that we shouldn't criticize the people who killed Jesus, because if they hadn't done it somebody else would have. That's not moral clarity, it's using human reasoning to sidestep moral clarity.

I’m simply observing that Paul’s encounters with Agrippa don’t include any call for him to step down. I think you implied they did. The same goes for Jesus’ interaction with the centurion, or Peter’s with Cornelius. I can’t think of a single case in the New Testament where a governing authority is told to abandon their position in order to follow Jesus.

Can you?
....

I was taught that we should not base doctrine on the narrative of Scripture. If a person's actions are 'endorsed' by Scripture, then that constitutes teaching, and in most cases it forms a valid basis for doctrine.

[Neto]

I think that part goes beyond Scripture and seems very much like asking the Lord for something well beyond anything that He has promised.

I agree.

I had forgotten that part until it was brought up here. I always found that part a bit troubling.

I find it troubling as well. Remember that these confessions were written by men, and (as far as I know) they did not claim inspiration of a Scriptural type. I think this was also in the Dutch 'arena', but they acknowledged some level of confusion regarding the eternal destiny of people who would not leave the worldly 'church', but also risked their very lives to hide and help the anabaptists in many ways. I recall that they referred to those people as the "lamb-hearted ones", but left the 'decision' regarding their souls to God himself. I think we can do the same for political leaders who do seek to govern righteously. (I'm not talking about a righteousness than comes through grace by faith, but a right life in purpose and deed. This IS, in fact, what the Scripture provides as the expectation for world leaders, the purpose for human government according to God's plan. Their deeds might be righteous, but no one is saved by works.)

[Ken]

I have at least two objections to this line of argument. First, to assume that because there is no record that Paul asked Agrippa to step down from being king that therefore being king is compatible with being a Christian, is really quite wild. Using the same logic, we would have to conclude that if Agrippa had become a Christian it would have been entirely OK for him to continue his incestuous relationship with Bernice, because Paul didn't explicitly condemn that either.
Equally untenable is the idea that it's OK for Christians to be in positions of worldly power because somebody else would do it if they stepped down. It's like saying that we shouldn't criticize the people who killed Jesus, because if they hadn't done it somebody else would have. That's not moral clarity, it's using human reasoning to sidestep moral clarity.

I’m simply observing that Paul’s encounters with Agrippa don’t include any call for him to step down. I think you implied they did. The same goes for Jesus’ interaction with the centurion, or Peter’s with Cornelius. I can’t think of a single case in the New Testament where a governing authority is told to abandon their position in order to follow Jesus.

Can you?
....

I was taught that we should not base doctrine on the narrative of Scripture. If a person's actions are 'endorsed' by Scripture, then that constitutes teaching, and in most cases it forms a valid basis for doctrine.

There are two separate issues at play here.

The first is the question of whether people of faith can hold public office or positions of power. Conservative Anabaptists are frankly outliers in the world of Christianity on that question.

The second is the question of whether people in public office or positions of power should follow ethical, moral, and just principles when exercising their office or their power. I don't think anyone argues that leaders should not be held to the highest standards of conduct. Whether or not they are Christian. The fact that someone is not a Christian does not give them license to act in an immoral, unethical, or unjust manner.

So in the examples above. Christian or not, leaders should not be engaging in incest. Likewise, those Jewish leaders who unjustly persecuted Jesus and called for his execution should not have done so. Although I suppose in a larger sense they were acting according to some larger Godly plan because without the Crucifixion and Jesus dying for our sins, Christianity would not exist, or at least not in the form that we recognize it.