Posted on 11/13/2010 10:43:10 AM PST by TitansAFC
This Summer, the Lutherans, or at least the Swiss-based Lutheran World Federation, apologized for persecuting pacifist Anabaptists 400 years ago. But given the ascendancy of Anabaptists among many U.S. evangelicals, their days as a small, persecuted minority are clearly long over.
"We remember how Anabaptist Christians knew suffering and persecution, and we remember how some of our most honored Reformation leaders defended this persecution in the name of faithfulness," solemnly intoned Bishop Mark Hanson during a joint service of repentance in Germany with Mennonites from around the world. Hanson is both president of the global Lutheran group and chief prelate of the liberal-leaning Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
Please see my defense of Mennonites and their right to practice pacifism in post 17 above.
Also, having looked up Dr. Trueblood, I am sure the man I heard was not him, as this man was in his 50s or 60s, in the 1980s, and Trueblood would of been in his 80s by then.
I cannot say I admire Quaker contributions much—they brought us penitentiaries and misunderstandings with the Indians (when in the 18th Century, the Quaker dominated Penn. legislature would not authorize troops to defend the frontier...relying on “Kumbaya” tactics...), but I’m sure a few have done some great things. I know next to nothing of Trueblood, however, except that I consider pacifism as a general ethic—that is a refusal to support or serve in the military or the police—morally wrong.
I may have posted in a lighthearted manner, but I was serious.
Are Christians supposed to stand by as their wives are raped?
I may have read your post wrong, but that’s how I read your position.
Traditional Mennonites accepted the idea that the State has a right to use force--only that Mennonites should not be involved in that (and should minimize involvement with the State--by, not voting, for example). They would pay their taxes though, and accepted police protection (by non-Mennonites).
More radical pacifists, and the new neo-pacifists mentioned in the article (like many of the ones at Messiah College) believe that NO ONE should exercise force--and they'd like to authorize the State to force that to be so (ironic, yes?).
The fact that they are preyed upon was C.S. Lewis' argument against pacifism--in that no State or government can be pacifist long, as sooner or later, it will be conquered by those who have no qualms using violence to attain and maintain power. The same applies on a local level: Pacifists (like everyone) are ALWAYS dependent for protection by persons who use force, that is non-pacifists--it cannot be escaped.
Therefore in a sense, pacifist communities are always parasitic to non-pacifists...a BIG reason they've historically been persecuted--since people saw them as a community as not doing their fare share.
Interesting enough, the EARLIEST Anabaptists, in the 16th Century were NOT pacifists and directly challenged Roman Catholic (and other Protestant) political authority. These however were militarily crushed and wiped out, causing folk like Menno Simons (founder of the Mennonites) to look to pacifism as an ironic self-defense-mechanism for their religious communities--to assure rulers, they were not challenging State rule--and were no threat to their power.
Pacifist religious groups have only really been protected well in America, however....
As someone who was raised Mennonite, went to Mennonite church not less than 3 times each week until I was 15, attended until I was 35, I think I understand Mennonites better than you do. As a result, I have much less respect for Mennonites than you do too.
By way of example; my sister and her family attended the Rainbow Mennonite Church of Kansas City until she passed away.
The church name was chosen to ‘celibrate’ a certain lifestyle, and is reflective of where most of the Mennonites are at today, completely lost.
Our town of 2,000 had 5 Mennonite churches, still does.
I didn’t even say I was a pacifist.
A husband has a duty to protect his wife, and his family, and to lay down his life for them.
None of which precludes pacifism. I grew up in an area that is very rural. We had dogs. We had one break in over the 30 years that they have been there, and that was only when no one was home.
I have, since then, been broken into three times. Once, I wasn’t home, but they left without taking anything. Not sure why they bothered to bust the door. I guess they were looking for stuff we didn’t have.
Once when my lady landlord left and he broke in thinking no one was home. I woke up, heard the thug. He had a crow bar and I didn’t have anything on me. I rushed him when he was on the other side of the door and he ran as fast as he could.
Third time, someone busted into my hotel room and it turned out to be an inside job. My conclusion:
The most important things to do for your security is to live in a safe area. Don’t live in the downtown area with your wife and family, move to a quieter area even if the area has a longer commute.
I’ve done this, and my plans for this are set with my fiancee and her kids. Got her out of a not so nice neighbourhood where I was responsible for them. Our system? They never left our sight. Door was locked every evening, usually one of us was home at all times.
I have nothing against guns. I go hunting every fall, and I know how to use them properly. However, risk preventation is all about avoiding situations that would put you in trouble in the first place.
“The church name was chosen to ‘celibrate’ a certain lifestyle, and is reflective of where most of the Mennonites are at today, completely lost.”
I was a Mennonite as well. However they were all Christian conservatives and strongly opposed gay marriage.
I am sorry to see that the decripitude has spread, but at least for me my experience with them was positive. You say you know mennonites better than me, and perhaps this is so, but the vast majority of Mennonites are conservatives.
ph
I was commenting on your view that Christians shouldn’t resist, not on you personally.
Amish and Mennonites believe in not using force for any reason. They are preyed on in some communities.
Let me rephrase:
Amish and Mennonites believe in THEIR not using force for any reason. They are preyed on in some communities.
They often have moved to escape repression, to Russia, then to the US and South American countries. I am not sure that there is anywhere else to go.
I didn’t even say that.
It’s not wrong for a Christian to take up arms and defend himself. It’s also not wrong to turn the cheek, and accept martyrdom in Christ.
Both approaches are called for at different times, from different people. Some are called for marriage, some are called for the priesthood.
I’ve grappled with this question for some time, and at least this is my understanding.
I have to chime in here. This is certainly NOT where most Mennonites are at today. Some, yes, but thank God they are still a minority. Mennonites vary widely. It's impossible to say "Mennonites are this" on any one issue or practice or belief. While some are pacifists (opposed to war) most are not, but are rather non-resistant, meaning they are opposed to personal retaliation in any form, taking literally Jesus' words to turn the other cheek when assaulted. Amazingly, there are stories where doing this diffused the anger and aggression of the other person, and the situation ended peacefully, without anyone getting hurt.
When I was growing up we would occasionally have Mennonites join us at our various reformed events, church services, whatnot. They would stick out as their women and girls would always be wearing their bonnets or headscarves. In any event, we were amenable to them, and they to us; and they always seemed like good people to me.
I remember I was visiting Denver a few years back, and as usual when traveling I looked for a local church to attend on a Sunday. There was a Mennonite church nearby and I thought I would drop by. The first thing I noticed upon entering was that no woman inside had her head covered. While that would be normal to me in most places, it didn’t fit the image that I had of Mennonites. Things only got more bizarre from there. The woman who got up to speak (who I was made to understand was the co-pastor with her husband) related how she wanted to give a message about the environment, but had been afraid she couldn’t find a Bible verse to go with her message. She had been excited, however, to discover a passage that would fit her intended message. So saying, she proceeded with her chosen passage - something taken from Isaiah or Jeremiah if I can remember. It seemed to bother no one there that the passage she was citing had no relation to the “sermon” which she intended to give. Well, no other then me that is.
Thereafter, she proceeded to drone on about some environmental pap - the content of which has utterly fled my mind, other than that it could have been taken verbatim from some Greenpeace leaflet. The “sermon” being ended, I politely exited the building. Now I’m not certain what sort of divisions have in the past rocked the Mennonite communion, but in any event, I learned that they as a group cannot all be painted with the same brush.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.