Mennonites and War

[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?

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.

Your response makes a strong case for the “way of the cross” and the redemptive power of nonviolence, which I appreciate. But I’m still unclear on whether you’re saying:

• Yes, civil government should operate entirely by the same nonviolent ethics as Christ’s disciples, or
• No, civil government can have a different role, even if that role isn’t a divine mandate.

Could you clarify where you land on that?

[MattY]

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.

I think there are two axes here - a single moral standard vs a dual ethics view on the one axis, and a strict separationist axis vs a less strict separationist axis, on the other hand. The difference between Marpeck and Sattler is more a difference along the separationist axis than the other. If you envision a box with the two axes, the modern liberal Mennonites lobbying against war and using political means to advocate for pacifism fall in the far less separationist and single moral ethic corner, as does JBG, although perhaps not in the same way or not as far into the corner. Sattler and the Schleitheim Confession fall into the hard-line separationist side and basically on the dual ethic side as well:

"The sword is an ordering of God outside the perfection of Christ. It punishes and kills the wicked and guards and protects the good. In the law the sword is established over the wicked for punishment and for death and the secular rulers are established to wield the same.

But within the perfection of Christ only the ban is used for the admonition and exclusion of the one who has sinned, without the death of the flesh, simply the warning and the command to sin no more.

...

Lastly, one can see in the following points that it does not befit a Christian to be a magistrate: the rule of the government is according to the flesh, that of the Christians according to the Spirit. Their houses and dwelling remain in this world, that of the Christians is in heaven. Their citizenship is in this world, that of the Christians is in heaven. The weapons of their battle and warfare are carnal and only against the flesh, but the weapons of Christians are spiritual, against the fortification of the devil. The worldly are armed with steel and iron, but Christians are armed with the armor of God, with truth, righteousness, peace, faith, salvation, and with the Word of God. In sum: as Christ our Head is minded, so also must be minded the members of the body of Christ through Him..."

I actually think Gary does too, if you think about his statement in a certain way: "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." The hardline separationist/dual ethic corner doesn't expect government to follow Christ's teachings but doesn't care because it's focused on calling people out and being separated from the world. (Hope I haven't misrepresented Gary here).