Mennonites and War

[JayP]

I think a mistake some folks are making in regards to this thread, is the difference between what a Christian should do, and what is inherently wrong differ. Let me explain that a bit better. We are callled upon to do certain things. But we should not assume all the things we do not do are inherently wrong.

Working from some basics. It is not automatically sinful to drink alcohol. Now, some of you might think that. And I respect some churches take a certain stand. For the sake of safety or the benefit of my brother, that may well be a fine position to take.
BUT it does not mean the guy next door that has a glass of wine with dinner is sinning.

In the same manner, many Mennonites might own a gun, but would refrain from running a gun store, because of the witness.


I bring this up because it can equally apply to war. Anabaptists do not take up arms. But you cannot assume (note, I did not say it is ok for other Christians to do so) it is wrong for others. Christ repeatedly commends Roman soldiers.

[ohio jones]

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 mostly agree with Archbishop Langton, I think he made a mistake in locating the chapter break for Romans 13 where he did, interrupting the continuous flow of the passage. The parallel between 12:19 and 13:4 ties the passage together: Vengeance is mine, I will repay; and I appoint authorities who act as avengers. So when Jeremiah repeatedly refers to Nebuchadnezzar as God's servant, it should be read in this context. Jeremiah 25:7-14 in particular pretty clearly states that Babylon will execute God's wrath on unrepentant Judah, but in turn God will repay them for doing so.

So I do not see how a moral distinction (as distinguished from an us/them distinction of identity) can be read into that passage. Caesar, Nebuchadnezzar, and those who work for them are individually responsible to God for their actions and are included in the "all men everywhere" who need to repent.

[Neto]

....
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.
....

I have a disconnect with you on the phrase above. I am aware that we are told to 'pray for all men (and women)', INCLUDING kings and all in authority, but I cannot think of any Scripture that tells us to 'pray for government'.

[And I understand the injunction to 'pray for everyone, including kings, and all in (secular) authority' in the context of "God is not willing that any should perish (eternally)". Governments cannot experience salvation, so I think there is an error in logic here.]

[Jazman]

....
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.
....

I have a disconnect with you on the phrase above. I am aware that we are told to 'pray for all men (and women)', INCLUDING kings and all in authority, but I cannot think of any Scripture that tells us to 'pray for government'.

[And I understand the injunction to 'pray for everyone, including kings, and all in (secular) authority' in the context of "God is not willing that any should perish (eternally)". Governments cannot experience salvation, so I think there is an error in logic here.]

True.... but I believe, based on what I read in Scripture, that God wants to do more in the world/universe/His creation, than just save human souls... (maybe this is the root of some disagreements?). Maybe this other simultaneous mission is where Romans 12/13 fits?

[Soloist]

True.... but I believe, based on what I read in Scripture, that God wants to do more in the world/universe/His creation, than just save human souls... (maybe this is the root of some disagreements?). Maybe this other simultaneous mission is where Romans 12/13 fits?

Sounds like an eschatology disagreement then.

[Soloist]

I think a mistake some folks are making in regards to this thread, is the difference between what a Christian should do, and what is inherently wrong differ. Let me explain that a bit better. We are callled upon to do certain things. But we should not assume all the things we do not do are inherently wrong.

Working from some basics. It is not automatically sinful to drink alcohol. Now, some of you might think that. And I respect some churches take a certain stand. For the sake of safety or the benefit of my brother, that may well be a fine position to take.
BUT it does not mean the guy next door that has a glass of wine with dinner is sinning.

In the same manner, many Mennonites might own a gun, but would refrain from running a gun store, because of the witness.


I bring this up because it can equally apply to war. Anabaptists do not take up arms. But you cannot assume (note, I did not say it is ok for other Christians to do so) it is wrong for others. Christ repeatedly commends Roman soldiers.

I understand your argument and I reject it. Christ never commended any soldier (nor did John) for soldiering but for faith.
War is different then military service. The system that was in place for the Roman soldier was not an automatic fighting position although that was involved more then people using this argument would like to admit, but they also maintained roads and infrastructure too.
I would say that a faithful Christian would lay his life down rather then fight and given the consequences of quitting your contract, I think a convert wouldn't be asked to leave but rather to not fight.

I accept your alcohol argument as valid, but I see substantially more Scriptural teachings on killing and reject it. Killing is wrong for all Christians. Is it forgivable? certainly, but its not obedient.

[JayP]

I think you misinterpreted my point. I never said Christ approves of soldiers killing.
Folks engage in too many academic type analysis of other situations, people, and times.

Are you prepared to tell me that you are sure of how God views all of these people?

My point is simply it is one thing for me to say, I believe God calls me to not tell a lie.
It is another to say all you liars over there are gonna burn in hell.
It is a third thing for a minister to say, A Christian should not lie, God says liars go to hell.

They are three related but quite different things.

[ken_sylvania]

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.

When I ask if something is morally acceptable, I'm asking "Is this something that is right and good according to Jesus' teachings? Is this an action that, at judgment day, would result in a verdict of "come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you." It seems to me that anything else requires a second definition of morality, and becomes absolutely confusing. After all, who gets to decide what that second definition will be?

How I would describe what I think you are describing, is that there are in reality three Kingdoms.
The Kingdom of God, consisting of the people who obey Jesus.
The Kingdom of the World, consisting of the people who don't obey Jesus but obey God (I guess?).
The Kingdom of Satan, consisting of the people who reject both Jesus and God and are morally bankrupt.

If an army general operates his army according to generally accepted standards of chivalry, fighting only defensive battles, no matter how successful he is, can you imagine our Lord saying "come, ye blessed of my father, inherit the kingdom"?

[Soloist]

Are you prepared to tell me that you are sure of how God views all of these people?

My point is simply it is one thing for me to say, I believe God calls me to not tell a lie.
It is another to say all you liars over there are gonna burn in hell.
It is a third thing for a minister to say, A Christian should not lie, God says liars go to hell.

They are three related but quite different things.

I believe that lie through ignorance is not the same as a lie through intent. Or even a lie through belief, it’s not the same as a lie through intent.
Someone who says drinking alcohol is sinful, earnestly believes that whether or not it’s true.

What I would say, and be prepared to stand on is that God does not wish us to kill anyone at this time, and all who wish to obey Him, will lay down their sword.
This isn’t say that there are not people who are ignorant and disobey ignorantly, and what God chooses to do with them it’s up to Him. I’m not prepared to judge those in ignorance.
Those who know and disobey are not going to inherit the kingdom of God.

You would classify me undoubtably as a lie of belief.
We can agree to disagree and I’m content with that, but it don’t agree with your original opinion.

Someone who believes that drinking alcohol is sinful and all who drink alcohol will not inherit the kingdom of God I believe are wrong. They would say I’m not ignorant because I know the truth. I do accept the possibility that my convictions are wrong.
Although I have to stand on what I believe rather than question everything I believe and have no footing.

[ken_sylvania]

I think you misinterpreted my point. I never said Christ approves of soldiers killing.
Folks engage in too many academic type analysis of other situations, people, and times.

Are you prepared to tell me that you are sure of how God views all of these people?

My point is simply it is one thing for me to say, I believe God calls me to not tell a lie.
It is another to say all you liars over there are gonna burn in hell.
It is a third thing for a minister to say, A Christian should not lie, God says liars go to hell.

They are three related but quite different things.

I think there can be a place for differences in the certainty with which we express an opinion.
For instance, the "I believe God calls me to ....." wording is, in my opinion, appropriate with regard to certain things. For instance, to "not drink alcoholic beverages," to "not participate in Social Security", to "wear a button down shirt rather than a T-shirt." There are reasons, and I think good reasons, for why I do or don't do these things, but they aren't necessarily taught directly by Jesus or the only reasonable application of His teachings. I also don't object to saying "I believe God calls us to love our enemies" aside from the subtle hint in such wording that maybe this is just my belief, but maybe I'm wrong about it, or that maybe God doesn't call everyone to love their enemies.
The second set of wording I'm a bit uncomfortable with. Perhaps I'm too conflict averse, but condemning a specific person to hell feels too much like the kind of judgement that we're called to avoid.
The general sense of the third statement I think can be appropriate when preaching to an audience of Christians, reminding them that while we expect the unsaved to lie, such a thing should never once be named among the saints. On the other hand, if the statement is given in the sense that God only calls Christians to not lie, but that it's OK for other people to lie, that seems to me to be unsound. To lie is to sin, and sinners cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven.