Mennonites and War

[Bootstrap]

For example, intentionally bombing a civilian apartment building isn’t a matter of nuance—it’s a clear moral wrong. Taking over another country by force in order to annex it isn't a matter of nuance—it’s a clear moral wrong.

Bombing a military base isn’t a clear moral wrong?

Both of those would take life why are you equating one life as less valuable than another?

No one is arguing that invading the country isn’t wrong.
The argument is against moralizing one side as right.

I agree that every human life is equally valuable before God. My point isn’t that some lives matter less, but that the moral weight of an action depends on its context and purpose.

For example, bombing a military base being used to launch attacks on civilians is tragic because it takes life, but it’s different in moral terms from deliberately targeting an apartment building full of civilians. One is aimed at stopping armed aggression; the other is aimed at harming non-combatants.

In the same way, in war there can be a real moral difference between initiating aggression and defending against it—even though both result in loss of life. Would you say there’s never a moral difference between those two?

[ohio jones]

Imagine a police officer stopping an active school shooter. In both cases, a life is taken, and every life is valuable, but the circumstances are very different. One is initiating violence against the innocent; the other is using force to stop that violence and protect lives.

I'm not ready to jump to the conclusion, even for hypothetical purposes, that "stopping" a shooter requires taking his life.

[GaryK]

I don't think Jesus clearly taught every moral judgment. He said nothing about abortion, for instance. But when people tell me it’s impossible to know if an unborn baby is a human life, I see that as avoiding moral clarity where it is, in fact, possible. In the same way, I think there are situations in war where we can clearly recognize who initiated aggression, even if the broader circumstances are complex.

For example, intentionally bombing a civilian apartment building isn’t a matter of nuance—it’s a clear moral wrong. Taking over another country by force in order to annex it isn't a matter of nuance—it’s a clear moral wrong.

What Jesus taught about killing doesn't apply to abortion?

I think comparing wars with abortion is an apples to oranges comparison. We can clearly speak about the immorality of abortion based on what Jesus taught but I'm not sure the same can be done about the morality/immorality of wars. I'm still interested in what the moral basis is for the statement "we should be clear about the difference between defending against aggression and initiating it" in relation to wars?

Gary, could I ask you to think about it this way? Imagine a police officer stopping an active school shooter. In both cases, a life is taken, and every life is valuable, but the circumstances are very different. One is initiating violence against the innocent; the other is using force to stop that violence and protect lives.

Do you think that same kind of moral distinction could apply to wars—where defending against aggression is different from starting it? I’d really like to hear how you would evaluate that.

What is the purpose in evaluating scenarios like this and then making moral statements about them? Why should we be clear in our statements about such things?

I am okay with saying that Paul says government is ordained to deal with such things. How government goes about doing such things is up to God to judge, not me, and I am content with leaving it there. If I make a statement about who or what side is more or less moral, what happens if God views it differently?

[Bootstrap]

Gary, could I ask you to think about it this way? Imagine a police officer stopping an active school shooter. In both cases, a life is taken, and every life is valuable, but the circumstances are very different. One is initiating violence against the innocent; the other is using force to stop that violence and protect lives.

Do you think that same kind of moral distinction could apply to wars—where defending against aggression is different from starting it? I’d really like to hear how you would evaluate that.

What is the purpose in evaluating scenarios like this and then making moral statements about them? Why should we be clear in our statements about such things?

I am okay with saying that Paul says government is ordained to deal with such things. How government goes about doing such things is up to God to judge, not me, and I am content with leaving it there. If I make a statement about who or what side is more or less moral, what happens if God views it differently?

I don’t have a problem with letting God be the ultimate judge — He sees far more clearly than we do. What I’m more concerned about are the pronouncements people make as if they speak for Caesar — things like “the aggressor is no different than the defender” or “both sides are just two sides of the same coin.”

That makes me wonder how you’d apply your approach in other areas. For instance, in abortion law, should we be advocating for innocent lives — especially since that doesn’t require killing anyone?

And what about policing in poor neighborhoods, where government force is involved — is that also a case where you’d prefer not to make moral distinctions? I’d be interested in how you’d evaluate those.

[Bootstrap]

Imagine a police officer stopping an active school shooter. In both cases, a life is taken, and every life is valuable, but the circumstances are very different. One is initiating violence against the innocent; the other is using force to stop that violence and protect lives.

I'm not ready to jump to the conclusion, even for hypothetical purposes, that "stopping" a shooter requires taking his life.

True — in many situations, stopping a shooter wouldn’t require killing them, and if possible, I think their life should be spared.

But in some cases, people with experience in active shooter response say lethal force may be the only way to prevent further deaths. I can’t speak from personal experience — most of us Mennonites have never been in that role — but I use the example because it illustrates the question I’m asking: does the moral evaluation of an action depend on its intent and circumstances?

Again, I'm comfortable with people who say that's Caesar's role and we don't speak for Caesar. You and I will not need to decide this in our own lives. If either of us stops an active shooter, it would be by peaceful means, probably with supernatural help.

[MattY]

Imagine a police officer stopping an active school shooter. In both cases, a life is taken, and every life is valuable, but the circumstances are very different. One is initiating violence against the innocent; the other is using force to stop that violence and protect lives.

I'm not ready to jump to the conclusion, even for hypothetical purposes, that "stopping" a shooter requires taking his life.

1) But it does require the use of force, does it not? And whatever is done to the shooter to stop him quickly (so as to prevent him from taking more innocent lives - they're not going to stand around and talk to him while he keeps shooting) probably would not feel loving to him. Now if you look at Matt. 5:38-47, where Jesus talks about loving your enemies and turning the other cheek, in neither case is taking someone's life mentioned; so when it comes to whether the government should be held to the same standard of ethics as Christians - whether the Sermon on the Mount applies to government - the question of whether a life is taken is sort of neither here nor there. Government can't operate according to New Testament ethics, and God set it up that way; they are to operate according to justice.

2) If God set up government authorities with the legitimate use of force to administer justice, and if God meant it when He said various things like, "they are God's servants to bring wrath on unbelievers", "whoever sheds man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed", and "an eye for an eye," then it follows that government authorities may need to take life at times. God is always good and has always been good. What God commanded and established in the Old Testament can never be evil; morality is based on His character and he cannot command evil. Morality cannot change. Justice is good; it is intrinsic to God's character. But so is mercy and grace. In Christ, justice and mercy meet. Christ satisfied God's justice, so that all who are in Him are forgiven of our sins, and we operate according to the grace and mercy He showed us. His kingdom is our priority, not the goals and priorities of kingdoms here in this era. We operate according to a different metaphysical reality; if we are citizens of His kingdom, we want to love others and make them citizens of Christ's kingdom as well. Dual ethics, which ChatGPT mentioned earlier in evaluating Boot's position, is essential to an Anabaptist position of nonresistance. Otherwise, if you have a single system of morality (applied to all situations including government) in which war is opposed on simply moral grounds, in which war and violence are always fundamentally morally wrong, then what you have is not nonresistance but pacifism.

[ohio jones]

Dual ethics, which ChatGPT mentioned earlier in evaluating Boot's position, is essential to an Anabaptist position of nonresistance.

... in many situations, stopping a shooter wouldn’t require killing them, and if possible, I think their life should be spared.

But in some cases, people with experience in active shooter response say lethal force may be the only way to prevent further deaths.

So according to government ethics, shooting the shooter may be considered acceptable as the lesser of two evils.

According to Kingdom ethics, evil is not allowed, but rather overcoming evil with good.

They are separate systems that are simply incompatible. Evaluating the morality of government actions requires us to set aside our own moral framework and (pretend to?) view the situation through the lens of government ethics. Which may be an interesting philosophical exercise, but with the danger of confusing the ethical systems.

[ken_sylvania]

For example, intentionally bombing a civilian apartment building isn’t a matter of nuance—it’s a clear moral wrong. Taking over another country by force in order to annex it isn't a matter of nuance—it’s a clear moral wrong.

Bombing a military base isn’t a clear moral wrong?

Both of those would take life why are you equating one life as less valuable than another?

No one is arguing that invading the country isn’t wrong.
The argument is against moralizing one side as right.

I agree that every human life is equally valuable before God. My point isn’t that some lives matter less, but that the moral weight of an action depends on its context and purpose.

For example, bombing a military base being used to launch attacks on civilians is tragic because it takes life, but it’s different in moral terms from deliberately targeting an apartment building full of civilians. One is aimed at stopping armed aggression; the other is aimed at harming non-combatants.

In the same way, in war there can be a real moral difference between initiating aggression and defending against it—even though both result in loss of life. Would you say there’s never a moral difference between those two?

If I ask what is the product of 8x8 - if one person answers 32 and the other answers 320, which one is more wrong? I feel like some folks feel that it is very important to call out the fact that the "320" answer is more wrong than the "32" answer, when in reality both answers are completely wrong.

Now as to your example - during most of the wars that the US has been involved in, both the government and public sentiment strongly advocated for every citizen to "do their part" toward winning the war. I expect the same is true in most other countries as well. With that being the case - what moral yardstick does a person use to decide that the housewife who gathers scrap metal to be melted into armaments is "an innocent civilian" while the daughter who is a secretary at the munitions plant is "a legitimate war target." How can we be so sure that a terror campaign aimed at breaking the fighting spirit of the so-called "civilian population" is less moral than dropping bombs on enemy soldiers? The firebombing of Tokyo and the use of atomic weapons was justified by saying that it would help ensure that the Japanese people would pressure their leaders to end the war, sparing untold numbers of American lives.

In this land of theory, where there is such a clear line between immoral military aggression and morally acceptable military defense, how long does a piece of ground need to be under the control of a certain government before it becomes immoral for another country to invade it? One month? One year? Ten years? If Russia and Ukraine were to agree to a ceasefire based on the front line remaining where it is for the time being, would it be immoral for Ukraine to launch a military operation to retake its territory if political turmoil in Russia were to create an opportunity?

[ken_sylvania]

Imagine a police officer stopping an active school shooter. In both cases, a life is taken, and every life is valuable, but the circumstances are very different. One is initiating violence against the innocent; the other is using force to stop that violence and protect lives.

I'm not ready to jump to the conclusion, even for hypothetical purposes, that "stopping" a shooter requires taking his life.

1) But it does require the use of force, does it not? And whatever is done to the shooter to stop him quickly (so as to prevent him from taking more innocent lives - they're not going to stand around and talk to him while he keeps shooting) probably would not feel loving to him. Now if you look at Matt. 5:38-47, where Jesus talks about loving your enemies and turning the other cheek, in neither case is taking someone's life mentioned; so when it comes to whether the government should be held to the same standard of ethics as Christians - whether the Sermon on the Mount applies to government - the question of whether a life is taken is sort of neither here nor there. Government can't operate according to New Testament ethics, and God set it up that way; they are to operate according to justice.

2) If God set up government authorities with the legitimate use of force to administer justice, and if God meant it when He said various things like, "they are God's servants to bring wrath on unbelievers", "whoever sheds man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed", and "an eye for an eye," then it follows that government authorities may need to take life at times. God is always good and has always been good. What God commanded and established in the Old Testament can never be evil; morality is based on His character and he cannot command evil. Morality cannot change. Justice is good; it is intrinsic to God's character. But so is mercy and grace. In Christ, justice and mercy meet. Christ satisfied God's justice, so that all who are in Him are forgiven of our sins, and we operate according to the grace and mercy He showed us. His kingdom is our priority, not the goals and priorities of kingdoms here in this era. We operate according to a different metaphysical reality; if we are citizens of His kingdom, we want to love others and make them citizens of Christ's kingdom as well. Dual ethics, which ChatGPT mentioned earlier in evaluating Boot's position, is essential to an Anabaptist position of nonresistance. Otherwise, if you have a single system of morality (applied to all situations including government) in which war is opposed on simply moral grounds, in which war and violence are always fundamentally morally wrong, then what you have is not nonresistance but pacifism.

What I've been talking about it not a matter of holding Government to New Testament ethics. It's a matter of calling everyone to repentance and obedience to Christ. Why should we waste our energy calling people to a standard that we don't believe is good enough? If we believe that government and use of force is good enough, why aren't we willing to accept it as good enough for ourselves? If we believe that God calls all men to a higher standard, why focus on whether people are in compliance with some sort of lower standard that doesn't meet what God is looking for?

I disagree that dual ethics is essential to an Anabaptist position of nonresistance. What have we to do to judge those that are without? I think there is a reason that the NT doesn't give instruction for how to govern a city or a nation. It's because we're called to come out from among them, and live holy lives. If Anabaptism believed in dual ethics and that it was important to help government adhere to some specific standard of morality, wouldn't we want to embed ourselves in military and other government institutions to try to change the ethics to be more moral? Wouldn't we want to be there to convince the Army to not train its soldiers to hate the enemy, to help the top brass understand the ethical boundaries involved in deciding how many foreign civilian lives can be expended to save one American soldier's life?

[GaryK]

Gary, could I ask you to think about it this way? Imagine a police officer stopping an active school shooter. In both cases, a life is taken, and every life is valuable, but the circumstances are very different. One is initiating violence against the innocent; the other is using force to stop that violence and protect lives.

Do you think that same kind of moral distinction could apply to wars—where defending against aggression is different from starting it? I’d really like to hear how you would evaluate that.

What is the purpose in evaluating scenarios like this and then making moral statements about them? Why should we be clear in our statements about such things?

I am okay with saying that Paul says government is ordained to deal with such things. How government goes about doing such things is up to God to judge, not me, and I am content with leaving it there. If I make a statement about who or what side is more or less moral, what happens if God views it differently?

I don’t have a problem with letting God be the ultimate judge — He sees far more clearly than we do. What I’m more concerned about are the pronouncements people make as if they speak for Caesar — things like “the aggressor is no different than the defender” or “both sides are just two sides of the same coin.”

Why are pronouncements like that concerning to you?

That makes me wonder how you’d apply your approach in other areas. For instance, in abortion law, should we be advocating for innocent lives — especially since that doesn’t require killing anyone?

And what about policing in poor neighborhoods, where government force is involved — is that also a case where you’d prefer not to make moral distinctions? I’d be interested in how you’d evaluate those.

I'm genuinely curious what you believe my approach is?

I don't involve myself in advocating for particular laws. The laws I advocate for are far superior to governmental laws and have the power to change lives into the likeness of Jesus. Perhaps if Christians were more involved in "policing" poor neighborhoods with the gospel of Jesus, governmental policing would not be as needed. Why should governmental affairs and actions sway my thinking on what is and isn't moral?