Mennonites and War

[ken_sylvania]

I think I may have mentioned this earlier, but maybe it's a question worth asking directly. "When we talk about whether the sinful actions of two people are morally equivalent, what are we measuring against to make that determination? If both are violating Christ's law, are we judging based on who violated it first, who is violating it worst, or are we comparing against some other kind of moral code?

If we are saying that killing in self defense is not morally equivalent to killing from hatred, is that because Jesus taught something like that, or what moral code are we using?

[barnhart]

I think I may have mentioned this earlier, but maybe it's a question worth asking directly. "When we talk about whether the sinful actions of two people are morally equivalent, what are we measuring against to make that determination? If both are violating Christ's law, are we judging based on who violated it first, who is violating it worst, or are we comparing against some other kind of moral code?

If we are saying that killing in self defense is not morally equivalent to killing from hatred, is that because Jesus taught something like that, or what moral code are we using?

There is danger down that path. Both are failure to love the enemy but that doesn't mean they are equivalent. I can fail to love my enemy by parking too close so he has trouble getting his car out and I can fail to love him by killing him. They are not the same.

[Neto]

I think I may have mentioned this earlier, but maybe it's a question worth asking directly. "When we talk about whether the sinful actions of two people are morally equivalent, what are we measuring against to make that determination? If both are violating Christ's law, are we judging based on who violated it first, who is violating it worst, or are we comparing against some other kind of moral code?

If we are saying that killing in self defense is not morally equivalent to killing from hatred, is that because Jesus taught something like that, or what moral code are we using?

Maybe I shouldn't comment, because I do not have the time necessary to 'flesh it out", but the Law that God gave to Moses could provide a "God's eye view" of a moral basis for a solution to these questions. Jesus had a high view of the Law, and indirectly sent people to it for answers; perhaps most obviously in the story about the rich man and Lazarus, in how Abraham answers the rich man's request to have Lazarus sent back into life, to warn the rich man's brothers. (He says "They have the Scriptures. If they won't heed that, they won't listen to a dead man come back to life to warn them.")

[Bootstrap]

You're saying the two sides are not morally equivalent, which feels correct - but I'm not sure how correct that is. You're suggesting that we are treating the abuser and the victim the same - but the victim who kills his abuser isn't just a victim, he's also a perpetrator of violence. When we say that both the invading soldier who kills his enemies and the defending soldier who kills his enemies both need to repent, it's because both of them are violating Christ's commandment. For some reason, you seem determined that defensive warfare should not be criticized, and I cannot understand why. You say that for conscience sake you couldn't be in charge of government, which suggests that you know in your heart that wielding the levers of government is sinful, yet you're unable or unwilling to call out that out as sin. To me it seems like horrible muddled mess of moral contradictions.

Ken, I appreciate your heart for following Jesus’ commands and rejecting all violence. For me, saying the two sides are morally equivalent is very different from recognizing that Caesar has a role we don’t. Romans 13 says he bears the sword, but that’s not our calling—and I’m not an expert on that other kingdom. We could choose to say nothing about who bears what responsibility, but if we do speak, I think we should distinguish between an aggressor and a victim.

As Christians, we will not kill. But we will stand with the victims. And when we do, there are basic facts we have to be willing to see—realities that would be obvious to anyone on the ground. When a Russian missile wipes out a residential block, the two sides are not “two sides of the same coin.” Ukraine is not doing that to Russia.

It’s one thing to defend against an invasion. It’s another to kidnap children, wipe out neighborhoods, run a program of rape and torture, or boast about restoring the glory of an empire. I don’t see Scripture telling us those are morally the same as defending one’s home. We can reject all killing while still naming the wrong of an aggressor for what it is.

[Bootstrap]

I think I may have mentioned this earlier, but maybe it's a question worth asking directly. "When we talk about whether the sinful actions of two people are morally equivalent, what are we measuring against to make that determination? If both are violating Christ's law, are we judging based on who violated it first, who is violating it worst, or are we comparing against some other kind of moral code?

If we are saying that killing in self defense is not morally equivalent to killing from hatred, is that because Jesus taught something like that, or what moral code are we using?

Ken, that’s a good question.

Here's how I see it: The New Testament clearly condemns all killing for the follower of Jesus, but it also recognizes that not all wrongdoing carries the same weight before God.

Jesus told Pilate, “the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin” (John 19:11). Both Pilate and the priests were guilty in His death, but Jesus names one as “greater,” showing that guilt can differ in degree. Hebrews warns of “how much worse punishment…will be deserved by the one who has trampled underfoot the Son of God” (Heb 10:29)—here again, all sin is serious, but some sins are described as worse and deserving greater judgment. John writes, “There is sin that leads to death…there is sin that does not lead to death” (1 John 5:16–17), distinguishing between sins in their outcome before God.

Jesus says certain hypocrites will receive “greater condemnation” (Luke 20:47) because they exploit others while pretending to be holy. He warns that it will be “more tolerable” for pagan cities like Tyre, Sidon, and Sodom on the day of judgment than for the towns that rejected Him after witnessing His miracles (Matt 11:21–24). In another parable, He says the servant who knew his master’s will and disobeyed will receive “many blows,” while the one who didn’t know will receive “few” (Luke 12:47–48). James cautions, “we who teach will be judged with greater strictness” (James 3:1), because the harm of misleading others is weightier. Paul affirms, “He will render to each one according to his works” (Rom 2:6) and warns Timothy about a specific wrongdoer: “Alexander the coppersmith did me great harm; the Lord will repay him according to his deeds” (2 Tim 4:14). Each of these points to the same truth: the NT does not flatten all sin into the same degree of guilt or consequence.

The Old Testament is even more explicit about this. It distinguishes between premeditated murder and accidental killing, with different consequences for each (Num 35). It differentiates between attacking another people and defending one’s own (Deut 20). The prophets repeatedly name specific nations that initiated violence—like Damascus, Gaza, Tyre, Edom—and pronounce judgment on them for their aggression (Amos 1–2), while showing compassion for those who suffered at their hands.

That moral clarity does not make killing permissible for the disciple of Jesus—we are called to reject it entirely. But it does mean the aggressor and the victim are not the same in God’s eyes. We can refuse to join in killing, while still naming the wrong of an aggressor for what it is.

[Bootstrap]

I think there have been times when Mennonites offered more care, support and compassion for repentant sex offenders than for their victims. This has troubled me, it feels like a double victimization. Sometimes hard consequences are part of affirming the value of the victim and the sinfulness of the offence.

Maybe something similar could happen on a national level, I don't know... Acting as if the victims of invasion are the moral equivalent of the invaders does does down play sin. But I still don't see a need for statements about such things.

To me, saying they are “two sides of the same coin” is itself very much a statement about such things. It’s not avoiding comment—it’s making a clear moral claim that both sides are equally at fault.

That’s quite different from simply deciding not to tell Caesar how to run that other kingdom. One is taking a position on moral equivalence; the other is choosing silence about the affairs of that kingdom altogether.

And I do suspect there are times when speaking out against Caesar is the right thing to do—especially when his actions cause grave harm to those made in God’s image. The prophets spoke to kings, naming injustice and calling out violence. If we choose to speak, I think we should make clear distinctions between an aggressor and those who suffer at their hands.

[Soloist]

When I see the same zeal over abortion Boot, perhaps then we can talk about greater sin.

The baby has no army to defend itself.

Ukraine has a trained army.

Ukraine is up against a large foe

The baby has a systemic attack on their life from accepted morality even by Christian’s.

Ukraine has support of most of the western world

The baby has a few Christian voices.


I am not arguing for moral equivalency between Russia and Ukraine leadership… but the soldiers on both sides do have moral equivalence

[Bootstrap]

When I see the same zeal over abortion Boot, perhaps then we can talk about greater sin.

I’m fully committed to the pro-life cause — I lobbied and worked against abortion for years. But that’s a different discussion. Right now, we’re talking about the moral standing of soldiers in war. Let’s not chase squirrels.

I am not arguing for moral equivalency between Russia and Ukraine leadership… but the soldiers on both sides do have moral equivalence.

Maybe. I’m not sure. I once knew a man in Germany who served in the army under Hitler. He told me that he was “just following orders” — and that’s what patriots should do. But when someone is ordered to commit atrocities, I’m not convinced that moral equivalence still holds. His wife was painfully embarrassed watching him show me pictures of his time in war.

[Soloist]

I’m fully committed to the pro-life cause — I lobbied and worked against abortion for years. But that’s a different discussion. Right now, we’re talking about the moral standing of soldiers in war. Let’s not chase squirrels.

I think you should see my point.
Also, why is the Ukrainian war worth your attention to argue on more than the war in Sudan?

Maybe. I’m not sure. I once knew a man in Germany who served in the army under Hitler. He told me that he was “just following orders” — and that’s what patriots should do. But when someone is ordered to commit atrocities, I’m not convinced that moral equivalence still holds. His wife was painfully embarrassed watching him show me pictures of his time in war.

Now we are arguing against propaganda and that’s harder to do.

Which was worse, The German soldier? Or the Russian?

I am sure you have the moral fortitude to say no, but does the average Ukrainian? The average Russian?

What happens to a Russian who says no? What happens to the Ukrainian who says no?

Killing is killing and is wrong. Warfare does not result in respectful, honorable, fair fighting. Never has, never will.
there is no just morality in war. Just evil.

You and I have no ability to change it. What we can do is show compassion to either side if we happen to actually talk to one and try to teach them the Jesus way.
Arguing over morality of sides is utterly pointless and not our job.
I would treat the Russian and the Ukrainian the same. Teach them that to love their enemies means they lay down their life for them. Not to be a carpet, but a chance to redeem the lost.

[ken_sylvania]

That moral clarity does not make killing permissible for the disciple of Jesus—we are called to reject it entirely. But it does mean the aggressor and the victim are not the same in God’s eyes. We can refuse to join in killing, while still naming the wrong of an aggressor for what it is.

Two things here that I adamantly disagree with
#1 - The idea that somehow Jesus' disciples are called to a different standard than anyone else. Jesus calls all men to follow him, and obey his commandments. As far as I can tell, there is zero support in the New Testament for the idea that only a subset of humanity is called to follow Christ, and if you're not part of that subset you are held to a lower standard. If killing is not permissible for the disciple of Jesus, it's not permissible for anyone. Yes, God uses earthly governments to work out his will and to keep order, but he also used the Jewish leaders and Pilate to accomplish the great plan of redemption. Note, however, that what Pilate did was a sin. He didn't get a pass just because he wasn't one of Jesus' disciples.

#2 - The constant drumbeat of insinuation that I or anybody else on this forum is suggesting that an aggressor and a victim are morally equivalent. It may not be deliberate, but words have meanings and it's important how we use them. It is possible for a person to be both a victim and an aggressor. There is no sin in being a victim, and victims of aggression and abuse deserve our sympathy and help to the extent that we can give it. What I feel like you are pushing, Bootstrap, is the idea that victimhood gives a person a free pass to fight back. That Ukraine's invasion of Russia is excusable because Russia invaded Ukraine first. That it's OK for Ukrainian soldiers to kill Russian soldiers because the Russians tried to kill them first. I vehemently disagree. No, maybe it's not morally equivalent, but all war and killing is wrong, whether it's defensive or aggressive.

If we're going to try to decide which side is right in a war, how far back should we go? Who decides who Caesar is for any given plot of land? If Russia were to annex part of Ukraine, and then in ten years the population would stage an uprising to try to gain independence, who would you say has the greater sin? Would it still be Russia's fault, or would it now be the fault of the people who are starting the new war?

I think it's probably wiser to simply refuse to take a position on which side of a war is "right".