A. The plain people meet the world

Mennonites are known as one of the "historic peace churches," (HPC) along with the Church of the Brethren and the Friends. Traditional HPC witness against violence and warfare has typically been demonstrated in conscientious objection to military service and a quest for alternatives to violence.

Historians have observed that during the first half of the 20th century, American Mennonites were most in danger of losing their normative Anabaptist roots. Movement from the withdrawal stance of the 1920s to almost total social and cultural participation in the 1980s has put heavy strains on traditional theological and ethical formulations. The massive pressures of social change, augmented by the influence of militant fundamentalism, called for new and creative theological effort.

World War II was a time of testing; overall, more than half of American Mennonites who were drafted accepted some form of military service. (This may be compared with some 80 or 90 percent of Church of the Brethren draftees.) By the 1950s, Mennonites had learned from the experience of conscientious objectors during two world wars that they had better give more attention to peace education as they faced a renewed military draft. This time the church was ahead of the government, by preparing through MCC Peace Section, plans for alternative service which were then presented to government officials.

The leadership of H.S. Bender, H.A. Fast and G.F. Hershberger was crucial to these efforts. These spokesmen regularly presented statements in appropriate governmental settings, opposing universal military service and speaking to other aspects of conscription.

Mennonites were also reaching out in other ways. In the 1950s they entered Vietnam, first in MCC service, then in mission work supported by the Eastern Mennonite Board. Within a few years the American military presence in Vietnam had turned into an undeclared war. Soon Mennonites were speaking out against that war, based on the historic position of the church and grounded in the mission and service experience of Mennonite personnel in Vietnam. An official statement of Mennonite General Conference in 1965 included a telegram to President Lyndon Johnson, questioning "the moral basis of American involvement in Vietnam."

U.S. Mennonites responded in various ways to the social turmoil of the 1960s -- civil rights activities, anti-war protests, draft and war tax resistance. Social activism on college campuses spilled over into communities and congregations. As the whole society debated vital questions of pacifism, politics, and resistance, some Mennonites joined in civil disobedience and a few were arrested. Some Mennonites worked with organizations such as the Fellowship of Reconciliation and SANE; some joined intentional communitiesdedicated to resistance. Canadian Mennonites offered their resources to young men from the United States escaping the draft.

During these turbulent times, Mennonites were pushed to re-examine and extend the traditional teachings as they sought to respond to events in light of biblical understandings. Delegates to church conferences passed numerous resolutions on demonstrations, draft resistance, war tax refusal, nuclear weapons, and war itself. Attitudes and positions on these controversies ignored Mennonite Conference boundaries, with both progressive and conservative voices found in every group.

Since World War II, the peace testimony has been refocused as a primary theme in the identity of the Mennonite churches. As Mennonites have responded to events of the times, denominational agencies have developed extensive programs of peace education and action, and overall church life has continually been challenged with opportunities to demonstrate the meaning of their professed adherence to the way of peace. Mennonite scholars began to create a more comprehensive peace theology and looked for opportunities to share their convictions with the wider Christian church.¹

B. The church and the world: Troeltsch's two types

Mennonites are no longer the quiet in the land. To understand what has been happening the reader needs to gain a larger perspective on the story. We cannot talk intelligently about the role of the church in the world and the new concern for peace and justice, without first paying attention to the two classical models of Christianity that have been used to interpret the situation. They have been labeled "church-type" and "sect-type," from the work of Ernst Troeltsch. In today's terms, we might prefer to call these the establishment church and the radical church.

In the beginning of the Christian movement, the followers of Jesus confronted the Roman empire with a distinctive worldview that has been called sectaria. They saw themselves as a distinct minority group with voluntary membership, set over against the larger social order. Highly disciplined, concerned for faithful obedience, they claimed no power base from which to change the world. Their gospel of peace was demonstrated in thorough going nonresistance, even to the point of self-sacrifice in martyrdom.

But something happened at the beginning of the 4th century, when the emperor Constantine declared himself a Christian, and virtually overnight the Roman world was "Christianized." This is the beginning of what came to be called the church-type, which seeks to be inclusive in both geography and membership, to dominate the social order and to extend its saving ministry through sacramental participation. And of course the church-type also intends to establish peace in the world, or at least some kind of order, by the conventional means of legal and military power.

Historically, these ideal types are prototypically embodied in themedieval Roman Catholic Church, the "Corpus Christianum," exemplifying the church-type, and in the Anabaptist movement of the 16th century, a prime example of the sect-type. Of course to treat these types so briefly is to set forth caricatures; my purpose is simply to contrast two postures toward power and social responsibility that have been characteristic of these two streams of influence in Christian history.

Regarding Christians and war, Canadian Baptist theologian Douglas John Hall has written:

Under the conditions of Constantinian Christianity (which is to say during the greater share of its history) the Christian church allowed its message to undergird, cultically, the political bravado of successive empires. The church sought to achieve its mission by aligning itself with power. It would have power through proximity to power.

What this has meant in practice is that the church has had to sanction war. For empire only sustains itself finally through military might.... Thus the concept of "the just war" has not been incidental to the theology of Christendom, as is sometimes thought; it is an integral aspect of the whole posture of Christendom vis-a-vis worldly power. The just war follows from Christian triumphalism as naturally as heat results from fire! When the triumph of the Christ is tied to the triumph of this or that imperium, then the triumph of the Christ is also tied to the logic of war.²

But the classic sectarian pacifist group takes a much different attitude toward the state. Simply stated, the responsibility of governing is off-limits. The sectarian refuses military service and expects little from government. In biblical terms, the Christian's responsibility is to pray for government, "for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life" (I Timothy 2). The sectarian is prepared to disobey rulers if he must, in order to remain faithful -- and the history of such groups includes its rollcall of martyrs -- but he does not aspire to office and there is no intention to use force or military power to shape the whole society according to Christian principles.

Much of the Mennonite experience fits this sectarian model. For centuries, ours has been a story of seeking relative isolation from the realm of government and militarism. Typically, we would seek to strike a deal with the authorities -- you leave us alone, don't make us serve as soldiers, and we'll stay in our rural corners and mind our own business. We won't fight in your wars, but we won't criticize them either. That was called a two-kingdoms theology.It was clear-cut; it had its own integrity. It made a good bit of sense in Europe or in America two or three centuries ago.

Quaker scholar Daniel Smith writes of this rigorous two-kingdom view as:

...a significant aspect of the Mennonite theology of peace. The minimalist position, dominant until just recently in Mennonite theological discourse, was defined by either reticence or refusal to take up any political office, to agitate for political reform, to vote, or in any way compromise their pacifist convictions. This is usually referred to as "nonresistance" rather than "pacifism" or "non-violence".... The best expression of this position, of course, is exemplified by the Amish. Deeply Christian, and deeply committed to non-violence, he/she prefers to live the Christian life of hard work and worship wherever the state allows them to live their life according to their conscience. To argue about their "patriotic duty" misses the point, for theirs is a "patriotism" to a higher "kingdom."³

But a lot of things changed as Mennonites moved into the 20th century. First, in the new democratic experiment called the United States, people who had been only subjects became citizens. That is, those without any opportunity to participate in governing were told that this was now their duty. So the obligations of citizenship and of patriotism had to be faced in a new way.

Second, in the 20th century the nature of warfare has drastically changed. What was for centuries a kind of game, admittedly brutal and bloody, but played out on marked battlefields between largely volunteer armies, has become before our eyes total, ideological, all-pervasive, breaking down distinctions between civilian and soldier and threatening the whole of civilization.

But perhaps most important for us are the changes in the church, not just those in government and in warfare. Over a century ago, the Anabaptist sectarians in North America began to move from being "the quiet in the land" to becoming a people engaged in global mission and service.

In the 20th century, formerly withdrawn Mennonites have been catapulted into the world. A new internal dynamic in the life of the church -- in particular its tremendously expanding global mission and service activity -- has interacted with the cataclysmic events of external history -- world wars, revolutions and famine -- to bring about significant change in the way Mennonites have come to think and act in the political realm. More and more Mennonites found themselves involved with government at various levels, needing to deal both with the positive welfare functions of the state and with the more problematic areas. These encounters illuminated the need for a church-state theology adequate for the new situation. Sometimes we have approached government seeking special privileges for ourselves, whether as conscientious objectors or as immigrants needing particular help. But a more impressive Mennonite political witness has been as advocates for others. That is, concerned Mennonites have moved into the political arena as the result of efforts to respond faithfully to the needs of suffering human beings whom we have encountered in the amazing expansion of our mission and service activity.

The point is that modern Mennonites at their best have developed a style of political activity that transcends the classic church or sect options and provides a model worth further analysis and development as a distinct type. As we have escaped the cultural isolation of our great- grandparents we have rediscovered a sense of mission to the world, including the political realm. But where we have been faithful we have avoided the trap of seeking power and prestige for ourselves through political involvement. Acting out of motives of compassion and justice, we have engaged in low-key but persistent efforts at witness to the political order, a witness inspired and motivated by the spirit of the gospel.

D. A renewed theology of nonviolent witness

The Mennonite understanding of the gospel is growing and changing. With these social changes have come new theological developments and interaction on the ecumenical scene. Mennonite peace theology has matured significantly since the 1950s, as a result both of digging deeper into biblical and historical foundations and of creative interaction with the issues of the times.

This theological development was especially enhanced through opportunities for dialogue with other Christian traditions, as American peace church representatives, serving in Europe after World War II, engaged in sustained discussion with the mainstream churches. A series of conferences at Puidoux, Switzerland, (1955 to 1962) provided a unique opportunity for testing peace church convictions in a larger arena. The innovative work of these younger scholars, such as Paul Peachey and John Howard Yoder, came back to America first through informal publications such as the "Concern" series of pamphlets.⁴

Two major themes in the renewed theology are an enlarged understanding of the "Lordship of Christ" and the recognition of acceptable nonviolent action.

Ever since the Schleitheim confession, Mennonite thought has wrestled with the doctrine of "two kingdoms." In the classic view, the disciple lives out the love ethic in direct obedience to Jesus; but God, who is sovereign over all, orders history through human authorities, and thus the use of force by the state is legitimate. This tends to result in a rigorous dualism that offers no critique of the state. Some Mennonites have gone so far as to argue that God wills a particular aggressive military action (to halt the advance of communism, for example) even though nonresistantChristians should have no part in it.

Even in the 16th century, however, there were differences on this crucial question. Menno Simons did not hesitate to call magistrates to respond to God's one standard of loving justice. But only in the 1960s was a theological rationale developed that legitimated efforts to challenge the structures of the world by direct appeal to authorities. (Actual practice, however, may well have been ahead of the theology, as some early 20th century public statements against conscription, for example, dared to challenge the whole conscription system itself as contrary to the purposes for which the state is given authority under God.)

The more recent position, grounded in thorough biblical scholarship, affirms the Lordship of Christ over all the "powers" of the cosmos as a basic theological premise. If Christ is indeed Lord over both church and world, then prophetic witness to the state is an integral part of the gospel message proclaiming the new age. Governmental authorities, however, cannot be expected to understand gospel language, but presumably they can be addressed through secular norms ("middle axioms"), ideals such as equality and justice that are ultimately grounded in the redemptive plan of God.⁵

Thus there is only one moral standard for both church and world; the crucial difference is in the response to that standard. This conviction enables Christians to call all of society, including the state, to account for its conduct in response to the will of God as made known through Christ. This more contemporary theology, while assuming a basic separation of church and state, enables the church to reach out in an aggressive ministry of reconciliation and witness to the whole world.

A second development has been the shift away from a narrow understanding of nonresistance toward recognition of the appropriateness of some forms of nonviolent resistance.⁶ Through the 1940s, prevailing Mennonite thought ruled out all forms of coercion and resistance, even nonviolent resistance. The Gandhian movement was criticized as a human strategy for achieving political goals, in contrast to the biblical way of peace.

But the appearance of Martin Luther King, Jr. and the U.S. civil rights movement presented a new form of nonviolent activity that challenged Mennonites who shared the concern for racial justice and peaceful social change. Observing that the King movement was rooted in the black churches, and noting its readiness to endure suffering, even unjustly, Mennonite leaders were ready to reconsider both the legitimacy of the cause and the method.

As Mennonites became involved with interfaith peace movements and joined demonstrations against nuclear weapons, the Vietnam War and the draft, Mennonite thinkers turned to the current issues of civil disobedience and nonviolent action. They projected new directions for Mennonite thinking and action that accepted nonviolent direct action as proper Christian behavior, given the motive of neighborlove and the limit of non-injury to persons.

These developments in a biblical pacifist self-understanding became key issues as Mennonites gained new visibility on the larger church scene and began to engage in ecumenical discussions that probed the fundamentals of the Christian attitude toward war and peace.