To Submit or Not to Submit? The 1776 Question

In 1776 my great-great-great-great-great grandfather, Christian Yoder, Jr., moved his family by team and wagon from Berks County, Pennsylvania, to the far western frontier of the state. A man now in his early fifties, he had emigrated to this country in 1742 at age sixteen with his widowed father, and was now ready to make another major move that would forever change his life.

It is likely that his father, Christian Sr., undertook the hazardous transatlantic journey that brought him to the new world for two reasons. One was to avoid having his young son conscripted into the Swiss army, the other was to enjoy the level of religious freedom and tolerance William Penn promised religious minorities in the New World.

These immigrant ancestors, having endured intense persecution and one bloody European war after another (often over religious conflicts), in 1776 faced another set of trials. Their new found place of refuge of 30-some years had become a land of turmoil, with Christian, Jr.,’s own sons now being in danger of being conscripted to help overthrow the British.

This created a serious dilemma for members of their Anabaptist community. To them, King George’s rule seemed anything but tyrannical in comparison to all they had experienced in the past. Besides, they read their Bibles as commanding them to submit to constituted authority in every way that didn’t violate their conscience.  As three Mennonite bishops in Pennsylvania wrote in 1773, "Through God's mercy we enjoy unlimited freedom in both civil and religious matters."

Ironically, once the fight for liberty started, the freedom of nonviolent Christians to live by their religious convictions became much more limited. By 1777 colonists were being forced to sign a pledge of loyalty to the revolutionary government, which incidentally never represented a full majority of its citizens, many of whom either remained Loyalist throughout the Revolutionary War or were neutral.

So what were the Quakers, Brethren, Mennonites and their Amish cousins to do? Not given to making political protests, some just moved west.

Here are some of the principles outlined in their Bibles that shaped their response:

Romans 12:14, 17 “Bless those who persecute you... Do not repay evil for evil.”
If this was to be the stance of first century Christians toward a Roman emperor like Nero, they reasoned, shouldn’t the same apply toward a far less malevolent King George III, whose authority was greatly limited by the English Bill of Rights (forerunner of our own) adopted in the prior century?

Romans 12:18 “If it is possible, as far as it is depends on you, live at peace with everyone.”
In November 1775, Mennonite and German Baptist ministers sent "A Short and Sincere Declaration" to the Pennsylvania assembly. In it they suggested that as an alternative to militia duty they donate money and otherwise help any families left destitute because their husbands and fathers were off fighting. Instead Pennsylvania passed a law levying a special war tax on all non-associators. Later the state agreed nonresistant Christians could hire substitutes or pay a fine, which most felt they could not do, because as their Declaration stated, they found "no freedom in giving, or doing, or assisting in anything by which men's lives are destroyed or hurt." As a result, Patriot officials confiscated their property to pay the taxes and fines.

Romans 12:19 “Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: ‘It is mine to avenge; I will repay,’ says the Lord.”
The 1775 Declaration also said, "We have dedicated ourselves to serve all men in everything that can be helpful to the preservation of their lives, but... we are not at liberty in conscience to take up arms to conquer our enemies, but rather to pray to God, who has power in heaven and on earth, for us and them."

Romans 12:20-21 “”If your enemies are hungry feed them, if they are thirsty, give them something to drink.... Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.”
The Continental Congress made it illegal to provide lodging or food to any Loyalists, and illegal to even market food in Philadelphia while it was under British control. Three men from the Weaverland Mennonite Church were charged with treason for giving lodging and food to some escaped British prisoners, and a 70-year-old Susannah Longacre was sentenced to 117 lashes on her bare back (fortunately, this sentence was reduced to a lesser punishment) for offering food to some men who claimed to be British soldiers but were really American soldiers who were going up and down the Philadelphia Pike to see who would be willing to feed their enemies. These people did not offer hospitality to others because they were British or revolutionaries, of course, but simply because they were hungry or in need of shelter, enemies or not.

Romans 13:1-7 “We must submit ourselves to governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established....Give everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenues, then revenue; if respect, then respect: If honor, then honor.”
To these simple believers, armed resistance to authority was out of the question. They believed God wanted stability and order, not chaos or bloody conflict. On this point they were in agreement with John Wesley, whose widely circulated tract, “A Calm Address to the American Colonies,” sought to dissuade Christians from taking up arms against the Crown. Not that Wesley so much favored either the monarchy or the Anglican church, but  because he believed an imperfect peace was far better than a bloody war. And John Dickinson, a respected Quaker lawmaker from Delaware, made the same argument to his colleagues prior to their signing the Declaration of Independence (which he refused to do).

In the end, the more militant members of the Continental Congress won out. But could there have been a better way to achieve greater independence, liberty and freedom than through war, as in the case of Canada, Australia, Poland, Egypt and countless other countries over the past centuries?

What do you think?

Documentation for some of the above can be found in MacMaster, Horst and Ulle, "Conscience in Crisis" (Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1979), pp. 266-7 and 515-6. Thanks, John Ruth, for your help!

Independence, Freedom and the National Anthem

Mark Schloneger, pastor of the Springdale Mennonite Church near Waynesboro, created an unexpected stir with his essay,  "Why I Don’t Sing 'The Star Spangled Banner'" the lead piece on CNN’s website Sunday, June 26.

The essay, which closed with, “I love my country, but I sing my loyalty and pledge my allegiance to Jesus alone,” generated over 4000 on-line responses, many of which labeled him an ungrateful traitor for his problems over some of the words of the anthem, suggesting he and others like him should promptly emigrate elsewhere.

One response to his statement about 16th century Catholics and Protestants torturing and executing Anabaptists was, "I'm disappointed in the Catholics and Protestants. Looks like they missed a few."

There were many others, though, who either expressed support for Schloneger’s convictions or at least celebrated his right to state them, stressing that this was what America was all about.

In scanning the posts I learned a lot about just how hostile many Americans are toward religious minorities, but also about the actual history of our nation’s anthem.

One respondent, “Bruce,” explained:

Francis Scott Key wrote a poem called "Defence of Fort McHenry" in 1814 based on a battle he witnessed in the War of 1812. He didn't experience this war as a soldier, by the way, he was there as a lawyer negotiating the release of some prisoners.... It was not our national anthem officially until 1931, signed into law by President Hoover.

While the first rendition of the anthem at a sporting event was during the 7th inning stretch of the 1918 World Series, it was not until WWII that the tradition of singing it at the beginning of each game came into being. Coincident to this was the evolution of the Pledge of Allegiance, written in 1892... It wasn't officially our national pledge until 1942 (and didn't include the words, "under God," until Eisenhower signed a a new law into place in 1954). Placing your hand over your heart was a convention that happened in late 1942 (about 6 months after adoption), replacing what is now called the "Bellamy salute."

The national anthem, at least the notion that we should open up all of our sporting events with it, is a relatively recent phenomenon. It blossomed with the pledge at about the same time, during the McCarthy era and the red scare times, when our country was at a low point when it comes to political freedom.

What was overlooked in this discussion is that members of the sixteenth century Anabaptist  “free church” movement (of which Mennonites are a part) suffered and died by the thousands for claiming the right of everyone to belong (or not) to the church of their choosing, a freedom we all take for granted today. The official state churches of that time, far from advocating freedom of religion, supported the persecution, killing or banishment of those who refused to have their children baptized and registered in whatever was the official brand of Christendom of the region of their birth (e.g., all children born in Lutheran jurisdictions were baptized Lutheran, etc.).

Thankfully, all of this has changed, but the fact remains that the religious freedom guaranteed in the first amendment owes its origin not so much to the blood of history's soldiers as to that of it's martyrs. In supporting freedom of expression and freedom of religion we are now all Mennonites. In questioning whether we can give full allegiance to both Caesar and Jesus, we cast our lot with the martyrs of the first century, who were persecuted not because they worshiped another deity (of which there were many) but because they pledged "Jesus is Lord" rather than the mandated "Caesar is Lord."

Since I truly do appreciate all that is good about America, but am not so fond of "bombs bursting in air," I would love to see “My Country ‘Tis of Thee” become the nation’s theme song.

“Let freedom ring!”

Saying No to War

There were 51,000 Civil War casualties at Gettysburg
alone.

“As disciples of Christ, we do not prepare for war, or participate in war or military service.”
       
This succinct statement taken from Article 22 of my church's "Confession of Faith in a Mennonite Perspective"  sets us apart from all but a small fraction of other Christians around the world, although I am heartened by more and more individuals and denominations, notably Quakers and the Church of the Brethren, supporting this position.  Yet the above was embraced universally by believers in the first and second centuries, and by most Anabaptist-minded (later Mennonite) Christians since the 16th century.

To cite two of many examples, Tertullian, a leader and theologian in the early church expressed this vision when he spoke of the church as a people who “join to beat their swords into plows, and their lances into sickles.”  Origin of Egypt, a contemporary of Tertullian’s said, “Nor do we ‘learn war any more,’ having become children of peace, for the sake of Jesus, our leader.”  

To them, Jesus spoke the final word from God on issues of war and peace.  War was simply over for Christians, a thing of the past. Menno Simons and other outspoken leaders and martyrs in Anabaptist and other renewal movements simply helped revive this conviction. Menno himself wrote, "True Christians do not know vengeance... their hearts overflow with peace... The regenerate do not go to war, or engage in strife...  they are the children of peace, who have beaten their swords into plowshares."

Sadly, few followers of Christ over the centuries have maintained such positions, which has resulted in Inquisitions, Crusades, multiple wars among so-called Christian nations in Europe and elsewhere, and Christians defending and participating in every kind of military adventure imaginable, all in the name of God and country, and each case defended as a "just war." And there has been a gradual erosion of anti-war conviction among Mennonites as well, members of a small “peace church” that has maintained for most of 500 years that military membership and church membership are incompatible.

To me, a weakening of any church’s position on this kind of witness represents a crying shame.  Surely there is a need for at least a remnant of people somewhere who consistently teach and demonstrate that Christians, by definition, are people who will not harm or kill under any circumstances, not even in a time of war, not even their enemies (and certainly not their fellow believers) anywhere in the world.

I see this as not about some sectarian “peace position,” but about an “agape position,” about Jesus's followers being a people defined by their passionate love for God above every other love or allegiance, and by a compassionate love for neighbor--friend, foe and foreigner alike. 

And lest we reduce agape to being a mere sentiment, an attitude of niceness, or as simply a benevolent feeling toward others (one that still allows us to engage in their destruction under certain circumstances), the New Testament makes clear that God's kind of unconditional love is defined by its actions, not merely its motives or emotions.  Thus Jesus, in explaining what loving ones neighbor actually means, tells the story of a Samaritan binding up the wounds of his mortal enemy, a Jew.  And Paul, in Romans 13 (the very passage that urges respect, rather than armed resistance, toward even the occupying, crucifying, terrorist Caesars) makes it clear that love will "do no harm to a neighbor." Period.

As Ghandi once observed, Christians seem to be the only ones who believe Jesus and the New Testament are not absolutely clear on these points: Do no harm.  Return good for evil.  Take up the cross, not the sword.  Follow Jesus’s personal example of a completely nonresistant life, who taught, "My kingdom (government) is not like those of this world. If that were so my servants would fight."

If, in our baptism, we receive a missionary commission to evangelize and reconcile God’s enemies to God and to each other, how can we accept a military commission to harm them?  And if we are convinced that in Jesus God’s future kingdom has already been inaugurated, how can we also pledge, under oath, to become a part of an enterprise committed to harming or coercing others “in the national interest”?

Clearly, most decent people, Christian or not, would renounce the following as immoral and unacceptable:

breaking and entering
lying and other forms of deception
physical, psychological, or other forms of torture and abuse
armed robbery
malicious wounding
organized acts of terrorism
using racial or other demeaning slurs
using explosives to destroy people or property
destroying land or other natural resources
stabbing or strangling
forcing people from their homes or communities
committing mass murder

Without question, most believers would speak out against members of churches engaging in such behaviors--and would disapprove of their supporting or belonging to any groups or organizations that do--yet raise no objections when military forces routinely encourage, train and/or command people to do all of the above and more.  Thus we are in danger of accepting, on a mass and organized scale, what we could not accept or allow on any other basis. Unlike legitimate police force, necessary in human societies to maintain order within national boundaries (and intended to preserve life and bring individuals to justice under laws designed to protect individual rights), military forces have a long history of plundering and destroying without benefit of such civilized restraints.

True, we pacifist Christians must repent of the many "beams" of self righteousness, materialism, and cowardly indifference that interfere with our moral vision. Because of these we may not always “see clearly” to lovingly help remove any specks of militarism from another’s eye.

But remove them we must, all of us, lest history write off the church as having been irrelevant and mute in one of the most pressing moral issues of all time.

I like this piece by Edna St. Vincent Millay:

CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR

I shall die, but that is all that I shall do for Death.
I hear him leading his horse out of the stall; I hear the clatter on the barn-floor.
He is in haste; he has business in Cuba, business in the Balkans, many calls to make this morning.
But I will not hold the bridle while he cinches the girth.
And he may mount by himself; I will not give him a leg up.
Though he flick my shoulders with his whip, I will not tell him which way the fox ran.
With his hoof on my breast, I will not tell him where the black boy hides in the swamp.
I shall die, but that is all that I shall do for Death; I am not on his payroll.
I will not tell him the whereabouts of my friends nor of my enemies either.
Though he promise me much, I will not map him the route to any man's door.
Am I a spy in the land of the living that I should deliver men to Death?
Brother, the password and the plans of our city are safe with me; never through me
Shall you be overcome.

Ten Reasons Not to Invade Iraq

Eight years ago I wrote the following letter that appeared in the March 8, 2003, Daily News-Record, twelve days before the US invasion of Iraq:

Editor, DNR:

Here is my list of the top ten groups opposed to the use of bombs and missiles (weapons of massive destruction) to depose Saddam Hussein:

10. Fiscal conservatives: It’s irresponsible to spend $100 billion we don’t have on this kind of blitzkrieg--and that is if all goes as planned. It may cost untold billions more to win this war and to keep the peace.

9. Die-hard pessimists: Nothing will go as planned, and we could be getting ourselves into another Vietnam.

8. Eternal optimists: Saddam, like our former archenemy Fidel, is advancing in years and won’t be around forever. And there are far less costly ways of containing him.

7. Internationalists: Moving forward without stronger support from the UN and other allies will only weaken our much needed influence around the world.

6. Isolationists: We’ve got enough problems at home, and shouldn’t use our defense forces to stir up a hornet’s nest half a world away.

5. Environmentalists: The planet can’t afford this kind of devastation and misuse of its resources.

4. Pro-Israel advocates: Further turmoil in the region could further threaten Israel’s survival.

3. Pro-life advocates: Countless numbers of unborn children will be murdered, and even more of those already born will suffer and die.

2. Pro-peace advocates: Let’s stop resorting to unspeakably barbaric ways of dealing with human conflicts.

1. Followers of Jesus: There are many fellow-believers in Iraq who are our friends. As to our enemies, we are under orders to love them, not kill them.