francis wrote:It's shameful that they did not help. Too often rejecting "the world" would have simply meant not getting one's hands dirty by helping those the world mistreated.
I think this is right Francis. Anabaptist two kingdom theology and focus on civic obedience has sometimes acted to stifle or slow down Anabaptist responses to the apparent wrongs and injustices occurring in society around them. I think this was primarily because of their understanding of the two kingdoms.
Historically, most Mennonites have not tried to reform or correct the world around them (which they saw as irreparably lost, corrupt and full of injustices). This perspective has led them to appear aloof at times to societal conflict and struggle, including not choosing sides in wars and moral causes. In obedience to Christ, they would willingly respond to needs that came to them - feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, biding up wounds, etc. - but they were not out to fix a depraved society or be involved in civil disobedience to improve it. Secondarily, they were driven by a strong sense of civil obedience, when that obedience did not violate their faith, choosing peaceful existence over law breaking and agitation...fear God, honor the king.
It's not that they took the Calvinist view of things - holding to total depravity and a fatalistic view of the damnation of the world and lost. No, they believed that Christ would usher in his Kingdom and redeem all that is broken, both people and society. It's just that they believed that the Kingdom of God (Christ's pure Kingdom of love, justice and peace) would be ushered in through the Church - as followers of Christ live according to his teachings and example - modeling for the world the way of Jesus, a society of Light lived in contrast to the darkness of the world.
This perspective has historically kept Anabaptists like Mennonites back from the front lines of societal struggle - slavery, civil war, prohibition, etc. This means that Mennonites have not lead the way in some of the great moral struggles of society - and they sometimes have been accused of being indifferent to the worlds injustice. In contrast however, these same Anabaptists, because of their Kingdom theology, have often been found at the front lines of religious struggle - living a more radical (albeit non-combative) faith expression than many of the more culturally and religiously assimilated groups around them - even facing persecution and derision for it.
I'm a little puzzled by what you mean by the two statements I set in bold print. I suspect that (by the second statement) you do not mean to say that the Church would bring in the Kingdom in the sense of perfecting the world, so that it is ready-made for Christ's rule. (I think I recall that you may not believe there will be a physical reign on the earth, and that would also rule out that understanding of your statement.)
But as to the subject here, I would say that Mennonites have (at least traditionally) stayed out of the political side of these societal problems due to the belief that change in society follows an individual change of heart. (Thus political efforts are, to that extent, unproductive.)
An example of how Mennonite involvement in the social arena at the basic personal level brought about reform at the political level is the changes attributed to Mennonite influence through alternate service in mental hospitals during WWII, and (perhaps mainly?) during the Korean & Vietnam 'conflicts'.
Josh wrote:A helpful book on the topic is Philemon, although this changes the topic to "The Apostles and slavery". It would appear that Paul persuaded a runaway slave to return to his master, yet he did so in a restorative, gospel-focused way that brought repentance and reconciliation to all.
I think Philemon needs to be understood in its context. Slavery in the Bible and US slavery in the 1800s are two very different animals. I do wonder what lessons from Philemon apply in our Western individualistic culture. If a slave is bound to his master, I wonder what Paul would say about changing jobs for better pay or better work environment.
Paul would probably not promote violating employment contracts that you signed, etc.
In any case, slavery in antiquity was pretty bad, and it had its own evils that were different (and sometimes worse) than 1800s chattels slavery. The question that Christianity raises is what one is supposed to do when one is oppressed or is a slave. The answer is non-violence, loving your enemies, and finding a way to be a peaceable witness to the oppressor.
Of course, for slaveholders and the wealthy, Christianity has a different call - starting with the command to sell all you have and give it to the poor. That's a pretty quick answer to the slavery question, which has always been associated with hoarding wealth.
francis wrote:It's shameful that they did not help. Too often rejecting "the world" would have simply meant not getting one's hands dirty by helping those the world mistreated.
Is it? Perhaps a better focus is on sharing the gospel with slaves and helping them understand how to love their enemies.
The alternative is choosing force and war. Do you think it was right to engage in mass murder in order to "win" the Civil War? Lots of Christians did, picked up arms, and fought.
Hats Off wrote:I would like to think that Mennonites did help with the underground railway but Sam Steiner has this to say in "In Search of Promised Lands."
The reticence to own slaves does not mean that Mennonites were active abolitionists. Unlike the Quakers, who originally owned quite a few slaves, Mennonites were never significant slave owners. But also unlike the Quakers, Mennonites took no leadership in rejecting slavery as the century progressed. There was no Mennonite equivalent to Quaker John Woolman. Later Mennonites in Canada were not active in the Underground Railroad,
And given the end results of Mennonites and the end results of Quakers in the present day, I'd say the Mennonites have been proven to have taken the more biblical stance. Conservative, Christian Quakerism is basically extinct. They were good at social justice projects, but have been pointless in spreading the gospel.
Dan Z wrote:This perspective has historically kept Anabaptists like Mennonites back from the front lines of societal struggle - slavery, civil war, prohibition, etc. This means that Mennonites have not lead the way in some of the great moral struggles of society - and they sometimes have been accused of being indifferent to the worlds injustice.
Well, in the present day, some Mennonites have tried to be on the front lines of the "societal struggle" around them. This has meant they are at the front lines of promoting homosexual marriage and promoting all manner of immorality.
In contrast however, these same Anabaptists, because of their Kingdom theology, have often been found at the front lines of religious struggle - living a more radical (albeit non-combative) faith expression than many of the more culturally and religiously assimilated groups around them - even facing persecution and derision for it.
Meanwhile, conservative Mennonites have not fallen into the trap of thinking that one can create God's kingdom on earth by outlawing alcohol or forcing people to accept gay marriage. Which is why conservative Mennonites will be around long after the last Unitarian-Universalist meeting house gets turned into a bed & breakfast.
Dan Z wrote:Secondarily, they were driven by a strong sense of civil obedience, when that obedience did not violate their faith, choosing peaceful existence over law breaking and agitation...fear God, honor the king.
This is the key thrust of my argument. Mennonites only practice civil disobedience when needed to defend their faith. This seems somewhat selfish and hypocritical.
For example, Mennonites are opposed to appealing to the government on behalf of other people. But you have a war drafting their young people, suddenly appealing to the government is a great idea.
It's wrong to help slaves escape because of Philemon, etc. But Ken Miller helps a former-lesbian woman and her daughter escape to another country (against the laws of the land.) I haven't heard of any conservative Mennonites disapproving of Ken's decision.
1 Cor. 7:21 "If you can gain your freedom, do so."
If I can try to escape my persecutors, I believe I can help my neighbor do likewise. I absolutely agree that to do lasting change we must face the heart issues, of both slaves and masters. However, to do good to the poor, the downtrodden, and to our enemies is also to help them physically. I suspect I will be accused of comparing apples to oranges but... Given the opportunity, I believe I would help a girl get out of a sexually abusive relationship, I would help a persecuted brother or sister escape, I would help a city teen hiding from a rival gang and I would help a slave on his way to freedom.
I also realize sometimes God works in amazing ways through prisoners or victims to work His grace in the life of captors and evil men. We must be truly humble and sensitive to His voice in every situation.
francis wrote:It's shameful that they did not help. Too often rejecting "the world" would have simply meant not getting one's hands dirty by helping those the world mistreated.
Is it? Perhaps a better focus is on sharing the gospel with slaves and helping them understand how to love their enemies.
The alternative is choosing force and war. Do you think it was right to engage in mass murder in order to "win" the Civil War? Lots of Christians did, picked up arms, and fought.
I would argue that the two are not mutually exclusive. I always heard stories of conscientious objectors sharing the gospel with their jailors, wouldn't it be just as effective (if not more) to share it with slaves that one was helping to escape an unjust system? I am not arguing that the mennonites should have fought in the civil war, (certainly not), but should have helped slaves escape alternate ways, if they had the opportunity, as many whites did at the time.
Josh wrote:
Paul would probably not promote violating employment contracts that you signed, etc.
Certainly correct. But who has one of those these days? For the most part, we are “employees at will” which means that you are entitled to essentially nothing should your employer decides to terminate you for any reason, or no reason. We are more like the people hired repeatedly for day labor.
Biblically, the American system of lifetime chattel slavery bore little resemblance to any OT form of slavery.