Keep in mind the traditional Mennonite pacifism was that government is legitimate, and is responsible for maintaining order by force, and Mennonites were to support government by paying taxes, and any other help they can, EXCEPT by acting violently themselves.
In WWII, Korea at least, Mennonites were happy to serve in the military as Medics or other non-combatants. Some of these guys won medals for very risky acts of heroism to help the soldiers under their care. So they did help to eliminate Hitler and other monsters from earth.
I don’t agree with pacifism, as it makes others do your necessary “dirty work” (maintain order by the use of force). However I have personally known Mennonites and they are typically very conservative, decent people who just take the words of Jesus very literally (”let him strike you on the other cheek...” )(if out of context...) and make a serious effort to live that way.
The most conservative branch of Mennonites, the Amish, broke away over 150 years ago—and are well known for their hard-working, chaste and decent life style. Remember how they treated the man’s family who openly murdered some half dozen of their children a few years ago (with love and compassion). Yes, maybe if somebody at the one-room school had a gun—and was willing to use it—it could have been prevented. But does anyone at your local (public or private) school have a gun?
One doesn’t have to agree with pacifism to respect them and their dedication to their version of Christian beliefs.
The neo-Pacifists mentioned in the article are different however. They (illogically, and stupidly) believe ANY use of force by anywhere for any reason is morally wrong. The bible never teaches this (or else Jesus would never have been called “Son of David,” since King David was the greatest of Israel’s warrior-kings) even though God clearly is grieved by violence (Noah’s pre-flood earth was “filled with violence” and hence needed to be destroyed) which in an ironic way necessitates violence by governing authorities to control unjust violence.
In my opinion, the new “neo-Pacifists” are usually immature persons who’ve led very sheltered and privileged lives, who ignorantly think that sin and violence do not come from within, but outside humans, and therefore a few rounds of Kumbaya can solve everything...
It is notable amidst those Christian denominations which believe in original sin (primarily Calvinists, today) you will find no pacifists...
The neo-Pacifists mentioned in the article are different however. They (illogically, and stupidly) believe ANY use of force by anywhere for any reason is morally wrong. The bible never teaches this (or else Jesus would never have been called “Son of David,” since King David was the greatest of Israel’s warrior-kings) even though God clearly is grieved by violence (Noah’s pre-flood earth was “filled with violence” and hence needed to be destroyed) which in an ironic way necessitates violence by governing authorities to control unjust violence.
Amish and Mennonites believe in not using force for any reason. They are preyed on in some communities.
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.