Mennonite Handbook of Information/Chapter 14
CHAPTER XIV
THE KINGDOM OF PEACE AND THE KINGDOM OF FORCE
Through the three centuries of their existence as a religious body, Mennonites have invariably held that the Bible teaching forbids that Christians engage in carnal warfare. This principle is clearly set forth in the sixth commandment, and is strongly emphasized and enlarged on in the Sermon on the Mount, and other portions of the New Testament. Writers of every class and period honestly admit that .Mennonites have a most unique and unimpeachable war record.
Most Christian bodies recognize in the peace doctrine one of the noblest of Christian virtues, and. that, the exercise of universal love and good will toward all human beings is man's highest duty on earth. It was originally designed by the Divine Mind that this principle should be observed among all nations of every kindred, people, and tongue under heaven.
Since love and good will are to be exercised by all mankind there are to be recognized two kingdoms among men: the one a kingdom of this world, that rules and overawes by the power of the sword and other instruments of death, and the other a kingdom whose weapon is the sword of the Spirit (the Word of God, which is quick and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart), hence the latter has no place in the kingdoms of this world.
The first is divinely appointed to hold in check the works of the evil doer and to preserve the life and dwelling place of all who temporarily abide in the world and are yet subjects of the kingdom of peace.
Members of the peace kingdom are supposed to be universally law-abiding and separate in operation, and hence as a kingdom of peace can never come in conflict with the kingdom of force. Should the kingdom of peace accomplish its great work of extending over all the earth as the waters cover the sea, so that the lawless and evil doing class would disappear, then the kingdom of force would become obsolete and useless.
Though the fact is generally recognized that the kingdom of peace and the kingdom of force should operate separately as two institutions, after all many persons insist on exercising certain rights and privileges that give them identity in both kingdoms.
In short, citizenship becomes established in both kingdoms to the degree that where the franchise is used, it follows that such citizens should use the sword also. In this it becomes clear that the true principle of separation between the two powers is lost, and unhappily they become interwoven and entangled one with the other.
Some Protestant leaders, such as Martin Luther and others, claimed that nonresistance * was taught in the Scriptures but yet held it to be necessary and obligatory for Christians to go to war with the civil powers when called on. Others, such as Zwingli and Calvin, believed and practiced the noncombatant life when applying to aggressive warfare; but defensive warfare they claimed to be right.
Menno Simons held the position and taught his followers that carnal warfare, under all conditions and circumstances, was wrong, and in direct opposition to the teaching of the Bible. He boldly proclaimed that "Our weapons are not swords and spears .... true Christians know no vengeance, no matter ho'w they are maltreated."
Because of the diversity of opinions in many of the Protestant creeds, it has long become a difficult matter in time of war for the kingdom of force to discern the motives of believers who teach and practice the doctrine of absolute separation between Church and State.
It was Benjamin Franklin who said that "There never was a good war or a bad peace." Even in such light the Church stands entirely out of its element, when aiding or abetting war, or in lending assistance to the kingdom of force in executing its powers in resisting the works of the unrighteous.
Individuals high up in the affairs of civil life often fail utterly to understand the creed that holds it to be wrong for the Christian to stand up in defense of his own country. Because of thesfr'ccmditions it readily appears as to why its advocates are misunderstood, and find themselves classecllwith those who are friendly to the enemy and open traitors to their native country. In this way many well meaning people have become utterly blind to the fact that it requires more moral courage and real bravery for its advocates to stand for such a principle than it does to meet an enemy in mortal combat.
To be regarded as "slackers" and "traitors," and in the meantime to be persecuted and punished accordingly, carries with it a reproach that in the sight of men is one of the severest tests that Christian character can be called upon to endure.
Few if any Protestant denominations have ever suffered in Europe or America as have the Mennonites. Three hundred years ago they were ridiculed, imprisoned, tortured, and killed by Catholics, and in later years received similar treatment from Protestants. It was the cruel scourge of religious wars in Europe that drove Mennonites in large numbers from that continent to America. Rather would they brave the perils of a voyage across the Atlantic Ocean (requiring from eight to twelve weeks) and the trials of pioneer life in America than to longer abide amid such surroundings.
Several of the colonies in America, especially Pennsylvania, had given out the inducement that they would be granted exemption from military duty. William Penn's treaty with the Indians, "that they would live in love and peace with him and his children as long as the sun and the moon endure," inspired the emigrant to Pennsylvania shores to believe that wars and rumors of wars would be unknown in that country.
History supplements the statement that as long as white men honored and respected this pledge made by the Indians, not one drop of Quaker or Mennonite blood was shed at their hands.