SPEAKING
TO GOVERNMENT
Mennonite
Church USA Delegate Assembly July 6, 2005
Opening comments by Duane Oswald, moderator
We come to another time of listening and speaking to one another on a topic that often perplexes us. We will not be voting on any statement about how or when to speak to government.
Rather, after some introductory thoughts by two persons, we will spend 35 minutes in table discussion and 20 minutes reporting at microphones. On your tables is the Confession of Faith, Article 23, for reference
in your discussion.
A brochure Citizenship and Peace-seeking is also on your table, offering perspective we hope is helpful. The Executive Board brings this discussion to you because we observed in Atlanta, two years ago, that the
resolution on abortion demonstrated our ambiguity, and some would say our inconsistency, on the issues we choose to present to government leaders. In addition, before we arrived at this meeting, the health care resolution sparked much debate on whether we should address Congress on the issue or not, and if
so, what we ought to say.
Should we express our opinions at all on any public policy? Should this be done by churchwide delegate bodies, by the Executive Board, or any other churchwide body? What about congregations sending messages to government or area conferences?
Should we express our convictions only on issues where we have strong agreement, or do we encourage individuals and congregations to express contrasting opinions?
We have made assumptions about such questions before, but we have never discussed, in a setting like this, our differing or common views on this question. Since our missional call is to be in purposeful engagement with the world around us, for the sake of Christ, this question seems important to address one way or another.
Lastly, we observe that among us in Mennonite Church USA we allow our nation’s political philosophies and parties to divide us. We even sometimes use our
political alignments to pass judgment on each other’s Christian witness.
So we have invited two respected leaders to share some insights for our table discussion. John Roth is Professor of History at Goshen College. Recently he shared some views on this topic in a C. Henry Smith lecture
titled “Called to One Peace: Christian Faith and Political Witness in a Divided Culture.”
Daryl Byler is Director of the Washington Office of MCC US, and is a member of the Executive Board. He was a resource to the board in our discussion of this issue at a recent board meeting.
If these leaders’ opinions differ from each other, we do not introduce them as a debate, to choose one over the other. If their opinions are similar, we do not imply that what they say is to become the last word on what
is right to do.
These leaders have only consented to share some brief words to stimulate our hearts and minds, and to start your table discussion.
Speaking to government By J. Daryl Byler
Given the controversy that it seems to spark, why should Mennonite Church USA even bother to witness to government? Our Confession of Faith in a Mennonite Perspective assumes that we will. It speaks about two ways that we witness to governing authorities. First, "by being that 'city on a hill' which demonstrates the way of Christ" (Article 23). That is to say, our primary form of public witness is our public practice. We cannot expect the nations to act in ways that the church fails to act.
So, we witness by being a new creation in Christ that:
-
Seeks the interests of others, not simply self-interest;
- Shares rather than hoards;
- Trusts God for its protection -- not weapons of war;
- Welcomes all persons on equal footing regardless of their race, ethnicity, economic status or gender.
Second, our Confession says that we "witness by being ambassadors for Christ, calling the nations . . . to move toward justice, peace and compassion for all people" (Article 23). Just as with evangelism, our example alone is not enough. Words are also necessary.
Let me quickly offer four additional reasons why we as Christians do well to speak to government.
Because it's biblical. The Bible is filled with stories about people of faith who resisted unjust laws and called rulers to act
more justly.
-
Shiphrah and Puah, Hebrew midwives, risked their lives when they refused Pharaoh's order to kill all the Hebrew baby boys (Exodus 1:15-22).
- Moses challenged Pharaoh to let the enslaved Hebrew people go into the desert to worship God (Exodus 4-12).
- Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego refused King Nebuchadnezzar's order to bow down and worship his 90-foot golden statue (Daniel 3).
- Daniel continued to pray to God when King Darius ordered his subjects to pray only to the king (Daniel 6).
- Esther risked her life to plead the case of the Jewish people before the king (Esther 4-9).
- When the governing authorities demanded that the apostles relinquish their "religious free speech," Peter responded, "We must obey God rather than any human authority" (Acts 5:29).
Because it's part of our Anabaptist theology and practice. Anabaptists begin with Jesus. Paul describes Jesus as both "head of the body, the church" (Colossians 1:18) and "head of every ruler and authority" (Colossians 2:10).
If we believe that Jesus is Lord of all, then his teaching and example are God's standard for human relationships and for the social order. Governing authorities may not acknowledge Christ, but this does not mean they are exempt from God's ways as revealed most fully in Jesus.
And while we recognize the ordering role of government, Romans 13 is not a blanket license for governing authorities to do whatever they please or to use unlimited force. Rather, the "punish the wrongdoer
language" of Romans 13 seems to envision a role for policing and judicial processes.
It is hardly an endorsement for governments to go to war. Menno Simons made this point. He supported the role of government in restraining evil, but called for leaders to do so without shedding blood: "Your task is to do justice between a man and his neighbor, to deliver the
oppressed out of the hand of the oppressor; also to restrain by reasonable means, that is, without tyranny and bloodshed . . . In this way, in all love, without force, violence, and blood, you may enlarge, help, and protect the kingdom of God with gracious consent and permission, with wise counsel and a pious,
unblamable life." (The Complete Writings of Menno Simons, p. 193.)
In practice, North American Anabaptists have, for many years, spoken to government officials about issues like military conscription that directly impact our own congregations. So speaking to government is nothing new.
Because our global sisters and brothers are asking us to. If we are committed to loving neighbor as self, it's hard to explain why we
would speak to government about issues that affect us (like the draft), but would not speak to the government about issues that affect our global sisters and brothers.
Several years ago Colombian Mennonites issued an urgent appeal to U.S. Mennonites, pleading as Mordecai pleaded with Esther, to intervene with governing authorities about a matter of life and death -- in this case, U.S. military aid to Colombia.
"We plead with you, just as Esther did, to call together all believers and to fast and pray for the Holy Spirit to change the mind of your governors, and to give strength and wisdom to members of Colombian churches so that we might console, offer hope and continue to take a message of
life and peace from our Lord Jesus Christ to this people and this suffering church.”
We are Christians living amidst the world's lone economic and military superpower. And we live in a democracy where we have the opportunity to make our voice known. These two realities create a special responsibility for us.
Because church has prophetic imagination. People of
faith see possibilities that others cannot. Indeed, why would Christians want a
public policy that is devoid of a moral voice?
Paul says that God's wisdom is made known to the rulers and
authorities through the church (Ephesians 3:10). Congressional staffers have
told me that Mennonite workers coming back from international settings help
them to "think outside the box" and to see alternative possibilities.
Is speaking to government our primary task as the church?
Certainly not. Is it hard work agreeing what to say about which issues? You
bet.
But is speaking to government an important part of our
faithful witness to the Lordship of Christ? And a necessary part of our calling
to love neighbor as self? I think the biblical answer is "yes." And
for that reason, we dare not keep quiet. May God's Spirit empower us to be that
city on a hill that, by its example, offers compelling witness to the way of
Christ.
And may we be humble enough to listen to and learn from one
another so that we may also find a more united voice in calling the nations to
act justly and with compassion for all people.
Reflections
on “Speaking to Government” By John D. Roth
Good morning!
I appreciate Daryl Byler’s comments very much. I hope that
you will hear my own brief reflections less as a “rebuttal” to Daryl’s
reflections, than as an expression of a deep pastoral concern for the health
and unity of our church.
I want to offer three basic observations or theses on
“speaking to government” that have taken shape in my mind over the past year or
two as I have traveled in many, many Mennonite congregations speaking on topics
related to Christian pacifism and the “gospel of peace.”
I would invite you to test these observations with what you
have experienced in your communities and what you sense the Spirit is saying to
the church.
- First, the presidential election campaign of 2004 revealed a deep division within the Mennonite Church that should be named, analyzed and openly addressed. As I traveled in many different Mennonite settings during the months leading up to the presidential
election in November—saw the bumper stickers in church parking lots, listened to encounters around coffee in the foyer, and engaged in dozens of direct conversations—I was troubled by how much the partisan Red/Blue political chasm that has divided our nation as a whole is also evident within our congregations. I don’t assume that Mennonites have ever been (or even should be) of one mind on political issues: but to a rather alarming degree our conversations about faith and politics—on both the Right and Left—are increasingly being co-opted by the polarized rhetoric
of radio talk show hosts, direct mail campaigns, polemical ads and web-site bloggers. Our growing readiness to identify ourselves as Republicans and Democrats—as passionate supporters (or antagonists!) of Bush or Kerry—and our apparent inability to distinguish our political witness from the deeply entrenched divisions in the larger culture is an embarrassment to the church, threatening to make us simply one more lobbying
group or political action committee shouting to be heard in the public square … often at cross-purposes with each other.
- A second observation: Mennonite political activists on
both the Left and Right are in danger of expecting far too much from
government and far too little from the church. At the heart of the our
understanding of Christian faith is conviction that the church is made up
of believers who have voluntarily chosen to accept God’s gracious love and
commit themselves to follow in the path of Jesus. The decision to follow
Christ means that our primary allegiance, and the main focus of our
engagement with the world, is the body of Christ – the church; a church
that is made visible to the world by its distinctive practices of service,
mutual aid, love and compassion for all human beings, including our
enemies. Our tradition has long taught that we should respect and pray for
those in government—indeed, the state has a divinely ordained role of
preserving order (“punishing the evildoer and protecting the good”); it
might even, tragically, use violence to do this. But the primary concern
of Christian is not to “redeem” the state, or to take control of
government, or to insist that it live up to the standards of the New
Testament.
To say that our primary focus is on the church rather than the state is
not a romantic appeal to some sort of separatist “purity” or a retreat
into the safety of ethnic enclaves – just the opposite! Christ calls us to
engage the “messiness” of a broken world; but we do this “sacrificially”
and “sacramentally” – in a language and a method consistent with the
gospel that we proclaim. In a spirit of love and compassion rather than
the politics of antagonism and fear. - My final point is a proposal or suggestion that might help
us move forward in a more positive way: at the initiative of local
congregations, ministers and conferences, Mennonites in the United States should commit themselves to a 5-year sabbatical from affiliations with any
political party. That is, we should publicly resolve to sit out the
next presidential election and to consciously abstain from all literature,
web-sites, organizations and lobbying efforts supported by groups partisan
to the Democrats or the Republicans. Choosing to withdraw from party-driven,
partisan politics for the next 5 years has several clear advantages:
- It offers both
sides a conscious “cooling off” period in which we symbolically acknowledge to each other that our identity as brothers and sisters in the church matters more than our identity as supporters of a particular set of government policies;
- it offers an occasion for a serious, sustained church-wide conversation about the nature of Christian witness in the public square; and
- it may allow us to develop a shared language for political witness that is rooted clearly and
unmistakably within the framework of the Church and our prior and primal allegiance to Jesus and the Gospel. I don’t assume that the result of all this will be complete agreement … but we will be making a public witness for ourselves and to the world that the church – not the Democratic or Republican party – is our most fundamental point of reference.
What might we focus on during that five-year sabbatical?
Local congregations would need to decide, of course, but I would
suggest that we start by cultivating spiritual practices that will keep our
political witness rooted in Christ. Before Jesus began his intense,
politically-charged ministry he retreated to the wilderness for 40 days of
testing: we would do well to begin with a disciplined period of spiritual
retreat in which, together—as political activists on both the Left and the
Right—we examine our motives, our goals and our methods.
If, together, we choose to be politically active during that
five year period, then I would encourage us to focus on initiatives that are
clearly rooted in the life of the church. For example: provide a safe house for
young pregnant women in your community so that they know that they, and their
unborn child, have the security of a loving and supportive community; develop
partnership with a sister congregations in Colombia or India or Indonesia; cultivate a global awareness through the lens provided by MCC, MWC and MMN
rather than NPR or FOX.
And along the way, consciously nurture the Fruits of the
Spirit in your midst, so that our shared witness to the world cannot help but
reflect the deep sense of love and compassion that we bear for each other, as
brothers and sisters in the church. Above all, do not retreat from the pain and
suffering of the world; but let the healing of the world begin with the hard,
joyful work of reconciliation in our own congregations and in our own church.