Mennonites and War

[ken_sylvania]

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

Sure — but that’s very different from claiming there’s no difference between the two sides.

The first simply says, “That’s for Another Kingdom to judge.”
The second claims there’s no moral distinction between an aggressor and a victim — and I don’t think Scripture or common sense supports that.

Good, I'm glad to hear that. See, what's interesting is, when JohnH posted earlier in this thread that his church has no official teaching on who is on the "right" side of the Russia/Ukraine conflict, your responded that such a position is unreasonable for anyone aware of the details of the conflict.
You wrote:

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.

Now you say that JohnH's position is probably the wiser position. I'm glad you changed your mind.

Two things here that I adamantly disagree with

I didn’t write either of those paragraphs, and they don’t accurately reflect what I’m saying. If we’re going to debate my position, let’s work from the paragraphs I actually wrote — then I can tell you whether I still stand by them.

Of course you didn't write those two paragraphs - I wrote them - explaining why I disagree with the paragraph you wrote, and which I quoted at the beginning of my post so that you could easily see what I was responding to. It's absolutely unfair to claim that I wasn't working from what you wrote - I quoted it immediately previous to my response.

Can you help me understand why you said that as disciples of Jesus we are called to reject killing entirely? Would you agree that every person on this earth is called to reject killing entirely? And if not, what makes the difference?

Also, if no one here is arguing for moral equivalence, then it sounds like we actually agree on that point — and it would be helpful to say so plainly. I think these discussions work best when each of us states our own beliefs, rather than trying to frame what the other person believes.

OK, let me say this as plainly as possible. I do not believe, in any way shape or form, that there is any kind of moral similarity between doing acts of aggression and being the victim of aggression. I also do not believe that the earth is flat, and I do not believe that the moon is made of green cheese. Hope that clears it up for you. I simply have no idea what anybody said in this thread that makes you think anyone believes that being a victim is a moral fault.

Now, what I didn't say, and am not prepared to say, is whether what the Russian soldiers are doing and what the Ukrainian soldiers are doing is morally equivalent. The Ukrainian soldiers are not just "being victims" - they are actively fighting and killing in clear violation of God's will, and I'm not interested in judging which side is more "right."
If I am understanding what you have been writing, you seem to believe that because the Ukrainians are victims of Russian aggression they have a certain moral right to kill Russian soldiers. Am I misunderstanding you?

[JohnH]

Sure, but I see a moral difference between:

1. Someone who kills, rapes, and tortures innocent civilians, and
2. Someone who risks his life to try to prevent that.

I couldn't do either, but I also wouldn’t call them morally equivalent.

In WWII, the Soviets were engaging in #1 in Ukraine. The Germans and Ukrainian nationalists were engaging in #2.

So would you agree that the Germans and Ukrainian nationalists were morally superior to the Soviets and their allies in WWII in Ukraine?

I chose to broaden the comparison because looking only at Germany vs. Russia risks overlooking the bigger picture. In nearly every other case—Germany vs. Poland, France, Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, Yugoslavia, and so on—Germany was clearly the aggressor.

That seems like an important moral distinction. Do you agree with that?

“Nearly every case” that ignores Ukraine seems like something major to overlook, particularly in a context of talking about present-day Ukraine and Russia. And it was very challenging for Mennonites to know what to do.

[MattY]

Sure, but I see a moral difference between:

1. Someone who kills, rapes, and tortures innocent civilians, and
2. Someone who risks his life to try to prevent that.

I couldn't do either, but I also wouldn’t call them morally equivalent.

In WWII, the Soviets were engaging in #1 in Ukraine. The Germans and Ukrainian nationalists were engaging in #2.

So would you agree that the Germans and Ukrainian nationalists were morally superior to the Soviets and their allies in WWII in Ukraine?

I chose to broaden the comparison because looking only at Germany vs. Russia risks overlooking the bigger picture. In nearly every other case—Germany vs. Poland, France, Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, Yugoslavia, and so on—Germany was clearly the aggressor.

That seems like an important moral distinction. Do you agree with that?

“Nearly every case” that ignores Ukraine seems like something major to overlook, particularly in a context of talking about present-day Ukraine and Russia. And it was very challenging for Mennonites to know what to do.

The war between Russia and Germany in Eastern Europe was basically between two sides of the same coin, as you said. But not all nations in that war were equivalent. That doesn't justify Christians fighting in that war, but it's merely an observation to avoid moral complacency and equivalency.

As for Ukraine, the Germans in Ukraine were also engaging in #1, deliberately and with official support from the top:

The elimination of Jews during the Holocaust in Ukraine started within a few days of the beginning of the Nazi occupation. The Ukrainian Auxiliary Police, which formed mid August 1941,[15] assisted by Einsatzgruppen C, and Police battalions rounded up Jews and undesirables for the Babi Yar massacre,[16] as well as other later massacres in cities and towns of modern-day Ukraine, such as Kolky,[17][18] Stepan,[19][20] Lviv, Lutsk, and Zhytomyr.[21]

During this period, on 1 September 1941, the Nazi-sponsored Ukrainian newspaper Volhyn wrote, in an article titled Zavoiovuimo misto" (Let's Conquer the City):

"All elements that reside in our land, whether they are Jews or Poles, must be eradicated. We are at this very moment resolving the Jewish question, and this resolution is part of the plan for the Reich's total reorganization of Europe.",[22][23][24] "The empty space that will be created, must immediately and irrevocable be filled by the real owners and masters of this land, the Ukrainian people".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian ... zi_Germany

[Bootstrap]

Sure, but I see a moral difference between:

1. Someone who kills, rapes, and tortures innocent civilians, and
2. Someone who risks his life to try to prevent that.

I couldn't do either, but I also wouldn’t call them morally equivalent.

In WWII, the Soviets were engaging in #1 in Ukraine. The Germans and Ukrainian nationalists were engaging in #2.

So would you agree that the Germans and Ukrainian nationalists were morally superior to the Soviets and their allies in WWII in Ukraine?

Do you believe there is a moral distinction between #1 and #2?

We can debate how to score various countries separately, but I would like to start with basics. Is there a moral distinction between someone who kills, rapes, and tortures innocent civilians and someone who risks his life to try to prevent that?

[Bootstrap]

Am I misunderstanding you?

Yes, I think so. Maybe it's helpful to start by summarizing the Two Kingdom understanding I base this on. And perhaps you can present your own views and let me present mine?

Here's how I see it:

The Bible presents two kingdoms. The Kingdom of Christ is the community of believers, marked by nonviolence, love of enemies, and separation from worldly power. The Kingdom of the World includes all human governments, which God uses to maintain order but which operate by force, not the self-giving love of Christ. The State belongs to the fallen order, yet can serve God’s purposes until Christ returns.

Romans 13 says governing authorities are God’s servants to punish wrongdoers and commend those who do right. Followers of Jesus respect and submit to them, but our calling is different: in Christ’s kingdom we reject killing, even while acknowledging God may use the State’s coercive power for limited purposes.

In the war between Russia and Ukraine, Russia is clearly the aggressor, committing atrocities like bombing civilians and abducting children — acts that are morally abhorrent. Ukraine is defending its people, which is part of Caesar’s role, but the means of war remain at odds with Christ’s way. The prophets condemned cruelty and injustice, but not legitimate self-defense, and the New Testament critiques rulers for corruption, abuse, or exploitation — not for maintaining order or protecting the public. We can name evil in the State’s realm, while remembering our mission as disciples is to live and proclaim the peaceable kingdom of Christ.

[R7ehr]

Who was worse, the US in WW2, or Russia today?

[temporal1]

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.

Does he have the moral high ground to kill you? Does a sympathetic bystander have the right/obligation to help him kill you?
Is he a perpetual victim with unlimited rights of defense (even when it becomes offense)?

[ken_sylvania]

Am I misunderstanding you?

Yes, I think so. Maybe it's helpful to start by summarizing the Two Kingdom understanding I base this on. And perhaps you can present your own views and let me present mine?

Here's how I see it:

The Bible presents two kingdoms. The Kingdom of Christ is the community of believers, marked by nonviolence, love of enemies, and separation from worldly power. The Kingdom of the World includes all human governments, which God uses to maintain order but which operate by force, not the self-giving love of Christ. The State belongs to the fallen order, yet can serve God’s purposes until Christ returns.

Romans 13 says governing authorities are God’s servants to punish wrongdoers and commend those who do right. Followers of Jesus respect and submit to them, but our calling is different: in Christ’s kingdom we reject killing, even while acknowledging God may use the State’s coercive power for limited purposes.

In the war between Russia and Ukraine, Russia is clearly the aggressor, committing atrocities like bombing civilians and abducting children — acts that are morally abhorrent. Ukraine is defending its people, which is part of Caesar’s role, but the means of war remain at odds with Christ’s way. The prophets condemned cruelty and injustice, but not legitimate self-defense, and the New Testament critiques rulers for corruption, abuse, or exploitation — not for maintaining order or protecting the public. We can name evil in the State’s realm, while remembering our mission as disciples is to live and proclaim the peaceable kingdom of Christ.

Does God call anyone to go to war?

[ken_sylvania]

Am I misunderstanding you?

Yes, I think so. Maybe it's helpful to start by summarizing the Two Kingdom understanding I base this on. And perhaps you can present your own views and let me present mine?

Here's how I see it:

The Bible presents two kingdoms. The Kingdom of Christ is the community of believers, marked by nonviolence, love of enemies, and separation from worldly power. The Kingdom of the World includes all human governments, which God uses to maintain order but which operate by force, not the self-giving love of Christ. The State belongs to the fallen order, yet can serve God’s purposes until Christ returns.

Romans 13 says governing authorities are God’s servants to punish wrongdoers and commend those who do right. Followers of Jesus respect and submit to them, but our calling is different: in Christ’s kingdom we reject killing, even while acknowledging God may use the State’s coercive power for limited purposes.

In the war between Russia and Ukraine, Russia is clearly the aggressor, committing atrocities like bombing civilians and abducting children — acts that are morally abhorrent. Ukraine is defending its people, which is part of Caesar’s role, but the means of war remain at odds with Christ’s way. The prophets condemned cruelty and injustice, but not legitimate self-defense, and the New Testament critiques rulers for corruption, abuse, or exploitation — not for maintaining order or protecting the public. We can name evil in the State’s realm, while remembering our mission as disciples is to live and proclaim the peaceable kingdom of Christ.

How is the bolded portion not saying that because the Ukrainians are victims of Russian aggression they have a certain moral right to kill Russian soldiers. Are you not saying that because the Ukrainian soldiers are killing Russian soldiers in self defense, it's sort of OK?

[Ken]

Am I misunderstanding you?

Yes, I think so. Maybe it's helpful to start by summarizing the Two Kingdom understanding I base this on. And perhaps you can present your own views and let me present mine?

Here's how I see it:

The Bible presents two kingdoms. The Kingdom of Christ is the community of believers, marked by nonviolence, love of enemies, and separation from worldly power. The Kingdom of the World includes all human governments, which God uses to maintain order but which operate by force, not the self-giving love of Christ. The State belongs to the fallen order, yet can serve God’s purposes until Christ returns.

Romans 13 says governing authorities are God’s servants to punish wrongdoers and commend those who do right. Followers of Jesus respect and submit to them, but our calling is different: in Christ’s kingdom we reject killing, even while acknowledging God may use the State’s coercive power for limited purposes.

In the war between Russia and Ukraine, Russia is clearly the aggressor, committing atrocities like bombing civilians and abducting children — acts that are morally abhorrent. Ukraine is defending its people, which is part of Caesar’s role, but the means of war remain at odds with Christ’s way. The prophets condemned cruelty and injustice, but not legitimate self-defense, and the New Testament critiques rulers for corruption, abuse, or exploitation — not for maintaining order or protecting the public. We can name evil in the State’s realm, while remembering our mission as disciples is to live and proclaim the peaceable kingdom of Christ.

How is the bolded portion not saying that because the Ukrainians are victims of Russian aggression they have a certain moral right to kill Russian soldiers. Are you not saying that because the Ukrainian soldiers are killing Russian soldiers in self defense, it's sort of OK?

If you believe in the legitimacy of armed police forces in your state, city, or county. Then you believe in the legitimacy of collective self defense. Because that is what police forces actually are.

I don't get the sense that there is a lot of "defund the police" or "abolish the police" sentiment in Menno-world. That seems more like an extreme leftist point of view. Do you believe that armed police forces should be abolished in your community on moral grounds?

I fail to see any moral difference between collective defense of a community with armed police, and collective defense of a nation with armed military. The only difference is scale. Police would be unnecessary if there were no criminals. And a military would be unnecessary if there were no invading armies.