Mennonites and 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.

I agree the Bible presents two kingdoms. The Kingdom of Christ consists of those who accept Christ's Lordship, repent of their sins, and follow Him. Their lives are marked by turning away from sin, obedience to Christ, and love for and service to others. In obedience to Christ they would rather suffer injury, death, or loss of property rather than defend themselves with violence.

The Kingdom of This World consists of those who reject Jesus Christ and instead follow the devil and Satan. They pick and choose which parts of the Bible they will follow, if any, using human reasoning to create their own moral code in hopes of creating a better, more fair world. The Kingdoms and Governments of the world are part and parcel of this kingdom - the Revelation of St John compares them in allegories to beasts and harlots, which reject God, persecute God's people, war among themselves, and ultimately turn on each other in a grand destruction. Despite this Kingdom being under the control of Satan, God in his overruling power uses it to bring about his will - restricting its full impulse for evil and maintaining a certain level of order in the world until the time comes when he will release it to bring about its own destruction. As he did in Old Testament times (see, for instance, Amos 1 & 2), God at times allows one part of this evil kingdom to bring punishment or destruction on another part of this kingdom. This doesn't mean that God approves of that nation that is doing the punishment, but he is simply using it for His purposes, as he did when he allowed Edom and Syria to afflict Israel because of Israel's sin, but later He meted out judgement to Edom and Syria because they had done so.

[ken_sylvania]

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.

No, I don't have an opinion that police forces should be abolished. Nor do I have an opinion that they should be created. The Kingdom of the World is going to do Kingdom of the World stuff. They're not following Christ, and I make no pretense that they are. If everyone would follow Christ there would be nobody left to be a policeman, but I don't ever expect that to happen in this world.

[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.

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?

Let me break this down into two separate questions.

Isn’t your bolded section basically saying Ukrainians have a moral right to kill Russian soldiers?

No. I’m distinguishing two kingdoms. In Caesar’s realm, states bear the sword to restrain evil—that’s descriptive of their role. In Christ’s kingdom, disciples don’t take up the sword—that’s prescriptive for us.

But you still say defense is different from atrocity.

Right—there’s a moral difference inside Caesar’s realm between protecting civilians and committing atrocities. We can name that without calling killing “OK” for Christians. My allegiance is to Christ’s peaceable way, so I urge Christians not to kill, even as I condemn Russia’s aggression and acknowledge the State’s duty to protect.

I think the Two Kingdoms includes a role for the State - after all, Romans 13 says that quite explicitly, and the prayers for government in the NT imply it.

• Caesar’s role (Rom 13): restrain evil by force when necessary.
• Christian discipleship: reject killing and love enemies.

Now a question back to you:

• Do you believe Caesar does not have this responsibility before God to restrain evil?
• Do you think the prophets would condemn legitimate self-defense in the same way they condemn oppression, atrocity, and unjust bloodshed?

[Bootstrap]

I agree the Bible presents two kingdoms. The Kingdom of Christ consists of those who accept Christ's Lordship, repent of their sins, and follow Him. Their lives are marked by turning away from sin, obedience to Christ, and love for and service to others. In obedience to Christ they would rather suffer injury, death, or loss of property rather than defend themselves with violence.

Here, we agree.

The Kingdom of This World consists of those who reject Jesus Christ and instead follow the devil and Satan. They pick and choose which parts of the Bible they will follow, if any, using human reasoning to create their own moral code in hopes of creating a better, more fair world. The Kingdoms and Governments of the world are part and parcel of this kingdom - the Revelation of St John compares them in allegories to beasts and harlots, which reject God, persecute God's people, war among themselves, and ultimately turn on each other in a grand destruction. Despite this Kingdom being under the control of Satan, God in his overruling power uses it to bring about his will - restricting its full impulse for evil and maintaining a certain level of order in the world until the time comes when he will release it to bring about its own destruction. As he did in Old Testament times (see, for instance, Amos 1 & 2), God at times allows one part of this evil kingdom to bring punishment or destruction on another part of this kingdom. This doesn't mean that God approves of that nation that is doing the punishment, but he is simply using it for His purposes, as he did when he allowed Edom and Syria to afflict Israel because of Israel's sin, but later He meted out judgement to Edom and Syria because they had done so.

Mike’s right about this. I think your position follows a clear Sattler-style two-kingdom line — governments as wholly part of Satan’s kingdom, in the Revelation “beasts and harlots” sense. I lean more toward a Marpeck reading, which leaves more space for the Romans 13 portrayal of God working through the State.

So I’m curious — how does your view handle Romans 13, especially where Paul calls governing authorities God’s servants for your good? If all rulers are simply part of Satan’s kingdom, how can submitting to them be “for our good”? Submitting to Satan’s kingdom for our good doesn’t seem to fit unless Paul means something I do not yet understand.

How do you interpret those phrases — “God’s servant,” “for your good,” “bear the sword not in vain” — in light of your description of governments as “part and parcel” of Satan’s kingdom?

[ken_sylvania]

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?

Let me break this down into two separate questions.

Isn’t your bolded section basically saying Ukrainians have a moral right to kill Russian soldiers?

No. I’m distinguishing two kingdoms. In Caesar’s realm, states bear the sword to restrain evil—that’s descriptive of their role. In Christ’s kingdom, disciples don’t take up the sword—that’s prescriptive for us.

OK, let me ask the question bluntly - I'd appreciate a clear answer. "Is it morally acceptable for Ukrainian soldiers to kill Russian soldiers?"

But you still say defense is different from atrocity.

Right—there’s a moral difference inside Caesar’s realm between protecting civilians and committing atrocities. We can name that without calling killing “OK” for Christians. My allegiance is to Christ’s peaceable way, so I urge Christians not to kill, even as I condemn Russia’s aggression and acknowledge the State’s duty to protect.

I think the Two Kingdoms includes a role for the State - after all, Romans 13 says that quite explicitly, and the prayers for government in the NT imply it.

• Caesar’s role (Rom 13): restrain evil by force when necessary.
• Christian discipleship: reject killing and love enemies.

Now a question back to you:

• Do you believe Caesar does not have this responsibility before God to restrain evil?

No, I do not believe Caesar has a responsibility before God to restrain evil. I believe he has a responsibility to repent, to do violence to no man, and to follow Christ.

[*] Do you think the prophets would condemn legitimate self-defense in the same way they condemn oppression, atrocity, and unjust bloodshed?[/list]

I think the Old Testament prophets were operating under God's will as He desired at the time. As a part of that, God sent prophets to lead His people. When Israel rejected God, God allowed them to have kings, although he warned them explicitly that it was contrary to His will. God gave them King David, but because King David was a man of war, God forbade him to build the Temple. "And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead." Acts 17:30-31.

[ken_sylvania]

Mike’s right about this. I think your position follows a clear Sattler-style two-kingdom line — governments as wholly part of Satan’s kingdom, in the Revelation “beasts and harlots” sense. I lean more toward a Marpeck reading, which leaves more space for the Romans 13 portrayal of God working through the State.

So I’m curious — how does your view handle Romans 13, especially where Paul calls governing authorities God’s servants for your good? If all rulers are simply part of Satan’s kingdom, how can submitting to them be “for our good”? Submitting to Satan’s kingdom for our good doesn’t seem to fit unless Paul means something I do not yet understand.

How do you interpret those phrases — “God’s servant,” “for your good,” “bear the sword not in vain” — in light of your description of governments as “part and parcel” of Satan’s kingdom?

Romans 13 is descriptive, not prescriptive. It tells us how God uses men and governments who are not subject to Him, to the benefit of His people and His kingdom.

[barnhart]

... I’m curious — how does your view handle Romans 13, especially where Paul calls governing authorities God’s servants for your good? If all rulers are simply part of Satan’s kingdom, how can submitting to them be “for our good”? Submitting to Satan’s kingdom for our good doesn’t seem to fit unless Paul means something I do not yet understand.

How do you interpret those phrases — “God’s servant,” “for your good,” “bear the sword not in vain” — in light of your description of governments as “part and parcel” of Satan’s kingdom?

The scriptures tell us God uses many things as "servants" to accomplish his will, famine, poverty, disease, plague, natural disasters and yes, even the kingdoms of this world. His capacity is so great even his enemies serve his ultimate purpose. The amazement of the disciples at Jesus' authority over the elements ("Even the winds and waves obey him!") is interesting as the sea was symbolic in the ancient world of disorder and chaos, roughly opposite of the creator God. Similarly we are amazed at his ability to marshall the kingdoms of the enemy, "Even the kingdoms of this world obey him!".

[Bootstrap]

I think the Two Kingdoms includes a role for the State - after all, Romans 13 says that quite explicitly, and the prayers for government in the NT imply it.

• Caesar’s role (Rom 13): restrain evil by force when necessary.
• Christian discipleship: reject killing and love enemies.

Now a question back to you:

• Do you believe Caesar does not have this responsibility before God to restrain evil?

No, I do not believe Caesar has a responsibility before God to restrain evil. I believe he has a responsibility to repent, to do violence to no man, and to follow Christ.

[*] Do you think the prophets would condemn legitimate self-defense in the same way they condemn oppression, atrocity, and unjust bloodshed?[/list]

I think the Old Testament prophets were operating under God's will as He desired at the time. As a part of that, God sent prophets to lead His people. When Israel rejected God, God allowed them to have kings, although he warned them explicitly that it was contrary to His will. God gave them King David, but because King David was a man of war, God forbade him to build the Temple. "And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead." Acts 17:30-31.

Thanks, that's very helpful. This is the first time that I have understood just how differently we understand Romans 13.

The scriptures tell us God uses many things as "servants" to accomplish his will, famine, poverty, disease, plague, natural disasters and yes, even the kingdoms of this world. His capacity is so great even his enemies serve his ultimate purpose. The amazement of the disciples at Jesus' authority over the elements ("Even the winds and waves obey him!") is interesting as the sea was symbolic in the ancient world of disorder and chaos, roughly opposite of the creator God. Similarly we are amazed at his ability to marshall the kingdoms of the enemy, "Even the kingdoms of this world obey him!".

OK, I think I understand where both of you are coming from. You aren't simply ignoring Romans 13, you understand it differently. This is the first time I have actually understood that. Which probably explains part of our talking past each other.

[Bootstrap]

Isn’t your bolded section basically saying Ukrainians have a moral right to kill Russian soldiers?

No. I’m distinguishing two kingdoms. In Caesar’s realm, states bear the sword to restrain evil—that’s descriptive of their role. In Christ’s kingdom, disciples don’t take up the sword—that’s prescriptive for us.

OK, let me ask the question bluntly - I'd appreciate a clear answer. "Is it morally acceptable for Ukrainian soldiers to kill Russian soldiers?"

Ken, I think this comes down to what you mean by morally acceptable. Is it morally acceptable for a policeman to use deadly force to stop a rape in progress? I could not do that as a Christian — my allegiance to Christ’s kingdom means I reject killing — but I also would not try to stop the policeman from doing it, and if I saw the woman thanking him afterward, I wouldn’t step in to tell her he was wrong. I wouldn't say killing someone was the right thing to do either, I would basically hold my tongue. And that's the reason I am not giving you a direct answer to your question. I think it would be worse for the woman to be raped and killed, but I cannot thank the policeman for killing the perpetrator to prevent it. On the other hand, it's really easy for me to condemn rape.

That’s how I see Ukraine’s defense in the realm of Caesar. In the Kingdom of the World, states bear the sword to restrain evil — that’s part of their God-given role (Romans 13). In the Kingdom of Christ, disciples don’t take up the sword — that’s our calling. So in Caesar’s realm, an act may be “morally acceptable” for the State in fulfilling its role, while still not being permissible for a follower of Jesus. I don't have a simple black-and-white way of describing that as "morally acceptable" or not.

So my question back to you is: when you ask if something is morally acceptable, do you mean acceptable for Caesar in his God-given role, or acceptable for disciples of Christ? Those are two different standards, and I think Romans 13 forces that distinction. I realize you interpret Romans 13 differently, but I’m explaining my understanding here.

[Soloist]

Isn’t your bolded section basically saying Ukrainians have a moral right to kill Russian soldiers?

No. I’m distinguishing two kingdoms. In Caesar’s realm, states bear the sword to restrain evil—that’s descriptive of their role. In Christ’s kingdom, disciples don’t take up the sword—that’s prescriptive for us.

OK, let me ask the question bluntly - I'd appreciate a clear answer. "Is it morally acceptable for Ukrainian soldiers to kill Russian soldiers?"

Ken, I think this comes down to what you mean by morally acceptable. Is it morally acceptable for a policeman to use deadly force to stop a rape in progress? I could not do that as a Christian — my allegiance to Christ’s kingdom means I reject killing — but I also would not try to stop the policeman from doing it, and if I saw the woman thanking him afterward, I wouldn’t step in to tell her he was wrong. I wouldn't say killing someone was the right thing to do either, I would basically hold my tongue. And that's the reason I am not giving you a direct answer to your question.

That’s how I see Ukraine’s defense in the realm of Caesar. In the Kingdom of the World, states bear the sword to restrain evil — that’s part of their God-given role (Romans 13). In the Kingdom of Christ, disciples don’t take up the sword — that’s our calling. So in Caesar’s realm, an act may be “morally acceptable” for the State in fulfilling its role, while still not being permissible for a follower of Jesus.

So my question back to you is: when you ask if something is morally acceptable, do you mean acceptable for Caesar in his God-given role, or acceptable for disciples of Christ? Those are two different standards, and I think Romans 13 forces that distinction. I realize you interpret Romans 13 differently, but I’m explaining my understanding here.

While I understand you wouldn't fight, and this is more of a theoretical discussion as it really doesn't effect us, how do you see your distinction in regard to Just War theory? do you see a difference? or do you accept the basic concept of Just war?
My impression is that you believe in what Augustine actually taught on Just war but I'd like to clarify how you see that teaching in regard to this. Augustine wasn't just giving justification for "christians" fighting but a moral teaching for nations waging war in general.