Mennonites and War

[ken_sylvania]

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.

Are you seriously advocating for government action against atheists and worshippers of false religions?

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.

But of the cities of these people, which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth: But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee:

And for cities not close by:

When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it. And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee. And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it: And when the Lord thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the Lord thy God hath given thee.

I'm not so sure that the Old Testament ethical style of warfare is the kind of warfare we want to be promoting.

[MattY]

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.

Are you seriously advocating for government action against atheists and worshippers of false religions?

That's what I get for writing too fast / not proofreading well enough. Not "unbelievers" in the underlined part. I intended to be loosely quoting Paul's words in Romans 13:4. I meant wrongdoers.

[ken_sylvania]

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.

Are you seriously advocating for government action against atheists and worshippers of false religions?

That's what I get for writing too fast / not proofreading well enough. Not "unbelievers" in the underlined part. I intended to be loosely quoting Paul's words in Romans 13:4. I meant wrongdoers.

I assumed Romans 13 was what you were quoting and wondered briefly which translation you were using.
I'm glad it's just poor proofreading rather than you being a proponent of government religious control!

[MattY]

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?

I'm not talking about something that's "good enough" (for what? for salvation?) that we could follow instead. I'm also not saying we should try to help or train other people to follow other ethical standards. But we are not called to hold the government, or nonbelievers in general, to the ethics of the Sermon on the Mount. No one is saved by following any ethical standard, whether it's just "good enough" or an extremely rigorous one. We call them to faith in Christ. Our conduct, love for our enemies, etc., can be a witness to them to call them out of their sins, but the main thing they need to do is repent and believe in Christ for forgiveness of their sins, and then as believers, they need to follow the way of the cross - Christ's teachings. When it comes to government, to perform the duties of government is God's will for those in government, but not for Christians. So if a person in government is or becomes a Christian, he/she should step down. (I'm not describing what a Christian can do - I'm not God and don't have that authority over Christians in other denominations who disagree. I'm just describing what should happen. It's not spelled out to this extent in Scripture). The God-ordained calling or duty of civil leaders isn't so much on those individuals, who need Christ just as much as anyone else, but on the office (compare the concept of corporate election vs. unconditional election in Christian theological debate).

But we should not talk about the role of the State as though it is evil or wrong to do what God ordained it to do. The OT Law was not wrong. It was right - meticulously right. If two men fought and one lost an eye, he was right to bring the other to justice, where the offender would be sentenced to an equal punishment. Eye for eye, sheep for sheep, life for life - this was right. This is still the role of the state, and it is God-ordained. Justice perverted is a horrible thing, but justice performed rightly - the punishment of evildoers - actually glorifies God. And in the end, He will be fully glorified when the wicked are perfectly judged according to His perfect justice.

The OT Law and the Law of Christ - both good revelations of one God. The second is the fullness of revelation, or rather it comes from the One who is the Fullness of God's revelation. And so we as the church follow the better way of Christ, the way of the cross to love all people and bring them to Christ, while remembering that He is the God who ordained the OT Law in the first place and will ride forth as King of Kings to judge His enemies with a flaming sword from His mouth.

[Bootstrap]

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.

Yes, that’s exactly what Dual Ethics says, and it’s central to the Anabaptist understanding of Two Kingdom theology as I’ve learned it. I realize from this discussion that not all Mennonites and Anabaptists see it in quite the same way.

It also strikes me that, here on MennoNet, we often spend considerable time and energy discussing and evaluating the morality of government actions—sometimes perhaps more than we spend on topics directly tied to the heart of the Kingdom of God. I say that not as a criticism of individuals, but as a reminder to myself and all of us to keep our focus on the life and calling Jesus has set before His people.

[Bootstrap]

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?

Either speak from Caesar’s perspective, or don’t. And if we speak as prophets, let us be clear when we are doing so.

But if the constant refrain is “they are all the same,” I worry it can unintentionally blur the difference between prophetic critique and moral indifference. That kind of statement can make it seem as though we cannot address immorality at all.

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 honestly don’t want to put words in your mouth. That’s why I’m asking you directly. Most of us aren’t very accurate when we try to describe someone else’s thinking, and I’d rather give you space to speak for yourself.

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?

Thank you for sharing your view. I appreciate your reminder that the laws of Christ’s Kingdom are far greater than any government’s, and that the gospel has the power to transform lives in ways no human law can. If more Christians lived that out in tangible ways — including in our poorest neighborhoods — perhaps the need for government intervention would be less.

[Bootstrap]

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

At least to the version that you and I learned, which was based on the way we understand Romans 13.

Romans 13 describes governing authorities as “God’s servant for your good” and “an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer.” The language here is remarkable—not just a statement that God can use them (as He sometimes did with pagan nations in the Old Testament), but that they hold a divinely appointed office with an active responsibility to restrain evil.

When God used Assyria or Babylon to judge His people, the prophets also condemned those nations for their arrogance, cruelty, and idolatry, even as He wielded them as instruments of judgment (e.g., Isaiah 10; Habakkuk 1–2). They were tools in His hand, but not affirmed in their role as legitimate moral agents acting on His behalf. By contrast, Paul’s description in Romans 13 treats the magistrate’s sword as an authorized vocation, an enduring function of government within God’s order. This is why the language in Romans 13 is stronger than anything we find applied to those Old Testament nations—it portrays governing authority as instituted by God in an ongoing way, not merely seized for a moment as part of a temporary judgment.

If we take that seriously, it means Caesar has a mandate that we, as private disciples, do not share. That’s exactly where the Anabaptist distinction between the ethics of Christ’s kingdom and the ethics of the civil government comes in. Without that distinction, it’s hard for me to make sense of how Christians can consistently refuse to take life themselves while still affirming that God gives the sword to the magistrate as His servant for justice.

I’m also learning that at least some conservative Anabaptists read Romans 13 very differently, and that difference shapes a distinct Two Kingdom theology—one that, in some ways, echoes differences between Sattler and Marpeck.

[Bootstrap]

If we take that seriously, it means Caesar has a mandate that we, as private disciples, do not share. That’s exactly where the Anabaptist distinction between the ethics of Christ’s kingdom and the ethics of the civil government comes in. Without that distinction, it’s hard for me to make sense of how Christians can consistently refuse to take life themselves while still affirming that God gives the sword to the magistrate as His servant for justice.

For those who reject Dual Ethics and read Romans 13 differently than I do: if you believe civil government has no God-given mandate to “bear the sword” as I’ve described, should Christians be calling for the abolition of all police and military? Do you believe government has any proper role in restraining evil?

Should civil government operate by exactly the same ethics that Christ calls His disciples to live by?

[MattY]

I posted this over under "Written Word" last year. It's relevant to this discussion of how to evaluate government actions, dual ethics, and the morality of violence.

viewtopic.php?f=23&t=6833&p=231922&hili ... an#p231922

https://philarchive.org/archive/ZIMATD

[joshuabgood]

If we take that seriously, it means Caesar has a mandate that we, as private disciples, do not share. That’s exactly where the Anabaptist distinction between the ethics of Christ’s kingdom and the ethics of the civil government comes in. Without that distinction, it’s hard for me to make sense of how Christians can consistently refuse to take life themselves while still affirming that God gives the sword to the magistrate as His servant for justice.

For those who reject Dual Ethics and read Romans 13 differently than I do: if you believe civil government has no God-given mandate to “bear the sword” as I’ve described, should Christians be calling for the abolition of all police and military? Do you believe government has any proper role in restraining evil?

Should civil government operate by exactly the same ethics that Christ calls His disciples to live by?

I don't believe there is a "God given mandate" to bear the sword insofar as it is a "divine right" or a "divine good." I do believe God in his providence can use any manner of things to work out his will, earthquakes, famines, Caesars, etc. On the other hand, we know God's heart is to send rain on the evildoer and the righteous, the just and the unjust.

So it isn't about what is "good enough" or about "abolition," it is about a way that has more redemptive power, more reconciliar efficacy, and greater personal purifying, than does the old justice of an eye for an eye. It is the way of suffering love, nonviolence, that is, the way of the cross. I don't think it is a "go get em" you all "pagans doing God's righteous will" on Saddam, Vlad, or Donald.

In one sense maybe it isn't even about primarily about confessing wrongdoing, as much as it is, calling people to a better way with more utility to bring about salvation, that is safety, on earth as also in heaven.