Mennonites and War

[Soloist]

I’m not sure that legal framework that still justifies a fundamental evil such as war fighting is all that helpful.

I think the legal framework put in place after World War II resulted in one of the longest periods of relative peace in European history. It prevented wars. They put it in place because of the horrors of two World Wars.

Sadly, it is being dismantled now, and it started to crumble with the Iraq war. We seem to be going back to a Great Powers arrangement. We are seeing more wars. And I think that will continue.

Some things that Caesar does actually prevent killing and wars.

The underlined seems to neglect the Pax Romana. You know, the one with the actual Caesar.

It also depends one what we mean by Pax... Rome certainly waged several wars of aggression during that time.

[ohio jones]

I think the legal framework put in place after World War II resulted in one of the longest periods of relative peace in European history. It prevented wars. They put it in place because of the horrors of two World Wars.

Sadly, it is being dismantled now, and it started to crumble with the Iraq war. We seem to be going back to a Great Powers arrangement. We are seeing more wars. And I think that will continue.

Some things that Caesar does actually prevent killing and wars.

The underlined seems to neglect the Pax Romana. You know, the one with the actual Caesar.

It also depends one what we mean by Pax... Rome certainly waged several wars of aggression during that time.

Those can be as conveniently overlooked as the wars of the late 20th century.

[Ken]

I think the legal framework put in place after World War II resulted in one of the longest periods of relative peace in European history. It prevented wars. They put it in place because of the horrors of two World Wars.

Sadly, it is being dismantled now, and it started to crumble with the Iraq war. We seem to be going back to a Great Powers arrangement. We are seeing more wars. And I think that will continue.

Some things that Caesar does actually prevent killing and wars.

The underlined seems to neglect the Pax Romana. You know, the one with the actual Caesar.

It also depends one what we mean by Pax... Rome certainly waged several wars of aggression during that time.

In the Roman world it usually refers more to the fact that Roman territories themselves (where the bulk of Romans lived) were at peace or that the Mediterranean world was at peace. There were still border wars and the occasional internal rebellion, notably in Britannia and Judea.

But if you were a Roman citizen living in say Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, Carthage, Ephesus, etc. then Pax Romana meant you had a good 150+ years of peaceful existence without invading armies or wars in your city. Whereas before that and after that there was definitely war in Roman cities.

It doesn't mean Rome didn't have an army and didn't use it during that period. They most certainly did.

[ken_sylvania]

But if you were a Roman citizen living in say Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, Carthage, Ephesus, etc. then Pax Romana meant you had a good 150+ years of peaceful existence without invading armies or wars in your city.

Bunch of old pappies there. Wonder if their Mediterranean Diet had anything to do with their longevity.

[JohnH]

Of course, back then we didn't have the legal framework we have now.

I’m not sure that legal framework that still justifies a fundamental evil such as war fighting is all that helpful.

I think the legal framework put in place after World War II resulted in one of the longest periods of relative peace in European history. It prevented wars. They put it in place because of the horrors of two World Wars.

Sadly, it is being dismantled now, and it started to crumble with the Iraq war. We seem to be going back to a Great Powers arrangement. We are seeing more wars. And I think that will continue.

Some things that Caesar does actually prevent killing and wars.

Yeah we’ll just ignore things like Korea, Vietnam, the Soviet takeover of Africa…

[JohnH]

But if you were a Roman citizen living in say Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, Carthage, Ephesus, etc. then Pax Romana meant you had a good 150+ years of peaceful existence without invading armies or wars in your city.

Bunch of old pappies there. Wonder if their Mediterranean Diet had anything to do with their longevity.

I heard Joel Salatin or John Kempf (can’t remember which) give a talk which discussed how much bigger the yields of wheat and other crops were back in the Roman era than they are now, according to historical accounts.

[Thomas_muntzer]

In another thread, someone asked if this really characterizes what Mennonites believe about war. Does it?

Tell me both:

1. Whether it corresponds to the official teaching of your branch of Mennodom, and
2. Whether you agree with it.

Discussion is encouraged. Don't tear others down for their beliefs.

As Mennonites, we don't believe in "just war" theory. We don't divide wars into good ones and bad ones, or believe that violence becomes righteous if the cause is. We’re called to a different path—to reject violence, even when others see it as justified.

But that doesn’t mean we pretend all violence is equal. Saying Russia and Ukraine are two sides of the same coin is like saying Hamas and Israeli civilians on October 7 were two sides of the same coin. In both cases, one side carried out a brutal and unjustified attack; the other was attacked. That doesn't make the victims—or their governments—blameless. But it does mean the situations aren’t morally equivalent.

The same goes for Gaza now. Hamas committed atrocities. So has the Israeli military. Thousands of civilians in Gaza have been killed—many of them children. That should break our hearts. We don't need to excuse or justify any side to grieve the victims or call the violence what it is: evil.

Refusing to participate in war doesn’t mean refusing to name wrongdoing. It means refusing to join the cycle. We can condemn all violence without pretending all sides are the same. And we can mourn every victim without denying the difference between an aggressor and the attacked.

what was the OP ?

[Thomas_muntzer]

But I don’t have to step into Caesar’s shoes to do that. And I don't have to say, for instance, that Hitler and the German Jews were just two sides of the same coin. Or that a policeman and a rapist are just two sides of the same coin.

That's not a valid analogy. A better analogy would be Hitler's Germany vs Stalin's Russia. And I think we can agree that both of those actually were two sides of the same coin.

So you agree, then, that Hitler and the German Jews were not just two sides of the same coin?

And perhaps you also agree that on October 7th, Hamas and the civilians in the kibbutzim were not just two sides of the same coin?

It sounds like you’re acknowledging that sometimes there really are clear moral differences—that in some conflicts, we can distinguish a perpetrator from a victim. Or a policeman from a rapist.

Do you also agree that in those cases, it’s a serious problem to act like there’s no difference?
If we can’t tell the difference, why would anyone look to us when they want to know what’s moral?
And if we can’t tell the difference, how can we protect the women and children in our own church communities?

Hamas and netantyahu and his gang (Smotrich and Ben g-vir) are just two sides of the same coin the victimizers

The civilian population of gaza and the people in the kibbutzim are the victims

[Jazman]

So when I call for the church to name the wrong of aggression and to care for victims, that’s not the same as giving the defender a free pass. It’s simply refusing to flatten the moral landscape into “both sides are equally to blame,” which is not what I see in Scripture or in reality.

I don't like the equal blame approach either. So would you call for my great, great grandfather to organize an official church response naming the aggressor?

I think it would be Biblically ok for they/him to stand up in church and tell the people the truth of what happened...and lament and pray about the resulting conflict.

For ex. I see no problem with Anabaptist / Two Kingdom theology, etc etc for Bishop ? in First Menno Church somewhere? - in 1860 to tell the congregation in public!, "This week, the Confederate States fired on and captured Fort Sumter from Federal forces and now the two sides are at war and we pray for God's help in this time of national conflict... and that both sides resolve this another way and make restitution to each other..."

No side chosen, but still the truth is told and everyone knows who started it, who is the first aggressor... who might need to first ask forgiveness for starting, who maybe needs to initiate restitution, etc?

(I have no idea if anyone ever did that, but I'm going to assume that most did not, given our Menno history of hunkering our heads down and getting as quiet as possible whenever 'conflict' broke out (big or small btw, sometimes in our own midst... as "Sweep it under the rug! Quick! Hurry!" being one of our subculture's favorite choices...)) Long before Russia invaded Ukraine, I've been questioning that stay silent approach... I wonder often what kind of message that sends, especially to little ones watching/listening? (but also staying leery of the other ditch = overt protest/activism as well)

Throughout this thread I see 2 things very gently being asked for:
1. That the chronological truth about a situation be acknowledged and used as a tool to discern sticky moral situations...
2. That moral equivalence arguments NOT be used to oversimplify, brush away, easily 'fix' sticky moral situations...

Also reading through this thread, it seems like some feel that asking for/demonstrating those two things amounts to:
1. abandoning Anabaptist / Two Kingdom theology and practice
2. choosing a side to root for and one to denounce
3. becoming a 'liberal'
Or some combo of those or all...

I'm a flawed interpreter, but when I read the Bible, I see the perpetrator generally getting the worst of the reaping they sow... It also seems to suggest that people will receive different 'rewards' at the judgement based on what they did. (Romans 2:6, 2 Cor 5:10, Rev 20:12-13) Therefore, I believe it's ok / Biblical, to say the perpetrator is morally worse than the victim (regardless of what the victim then chooses to do in response).

[Neto]

So when I call for the church to name the wrong of aggression and to care for victims, that’s not the same as giving the defender a free pass. It’s simply refusing to flatten the moral landscape into “both sides are equally to blame,” which is not what I see in Scripture or in reality.

I don't like the equal blame approach either. So would you call for my great, great grandfather to organize an official church response naming the aggressor?

I think it would be Biblically ok for they/him to stand up in church and tell the people the truth of what happened...and lament and pray about the resulting conflict.

For ex. I see no problem with Anabaptist / Two Kingdom theology, etc etc for Bishop ? in First Menno Church somewhere? - in 1860 to tell the congregation in public!, "This week, the Confederate States fired on and captured Fort Sumter from Federal forces and now the two sides are at war and we pray for God's help in this time of national conflict... and that both sides resolve this another way and make restitution to each other..."

No side chosen, but still the truth is told and everyone knows who started it, who is the first aggressor... who might need to first ask forgiveness for starting, who maybe needs to initiate restitution, etc?
....

"Who started it? "

There are different interpretations of those initial events, other questions that need to be answered before those statements can be unquestionable accepted as truth.
Did the US constitution grant the right of cessation before that date?
If so, did the statements made by those states wishing to secede follow the correct procedures?
If they did, then which country had armed forces within the other's boundaries?
Is that not considered an invasion?

I'm not arguing the status of the two sides in "The War Between the States", just using that example as an illustration of how conclusions may sometimes be taken that are actually influenced by elements other than fully factual information.