How Should the Church Relate to the State?

Continuing our series on “What Do Mennonites Believe?” we turn now to a Mennonite understanding of how the church and state relate to one another. To see how distinctive the Mennonite stance is, let me compare it to three other major Protestant stances:

Martin Luther: Martin Luther believed that there are two kinds of kingdoms operating in this world: the kingdoms of the world (national and local governments) and the kingdom of Christ (a spiritual kingdom among us). The kingdoms of the world have boundaries, armies, courts, etc. They operate on the ethic of “natural law”–a sense of justice that is common to human beings. So the task of worldly governments is to provide justice in the form of protecting citizens from harm and punishing wrongdoers. To do this, governments must rely on the threat and use of force. The kingdom of Christ, on the other hand, has no boundary to defend and no armed forces. It operates from Jesus’ ethic of love for all people, even enemies. Its task is to share and live out the message of God’s love and to redeem sinners. For Luther, it is impossible for governments to operate from Christ’s ethic of nonviolent love. If governments operated from an ethic of love, lawless people would take advantage of the situation to act selfishly and destroy all justice in the world. So the dilemma for Luther is: should Christians follow the ethic of love, given to us by Christ, or the ethic of natural law that allows for the use of force and violence for the sake of maintaining civil order and justice? Luther answered this question by saying that the Christian belongs to both kingdoms simultaneously–the government and the kingdom of Christ. As an individual, the Christian must operate from the ethic of love, so Christians (as individuals) should never use violent force or even carry a weapon. But if the Christian, as a citizen of the state, is called upon to represent the state through being a soldier or judge or executioner, the Christian–as a representative of the state–must operate from the ethic of natural law and use violence as justly permitted by the state.

John Calvin: John Calvin took a different approach. He agreed that there are two kingdoms–the kingdoms of the world and the kingdom of Christ, but he held that it is the duty of the church to transform the kingdoms of the world into the kingdom of Christ. In other words, all governments ought to become Christian, run by Christian principles and ethics. But according to Calvin, the Christian ethic is not only nonviolent love; the Christian ethic also includes the use of force to provide security and justice–as we see in ancient Israel’s law codes and holy wars. So the task of the church is to base government laws and wars on Old Testament models. The Christian, as an individual, lives by nonviolent love as taught by Jesus, but as a representative of the government the Christian lives by Old Testament law which is meant for Christian governments.

Anabaptists: The Anabaptists were the radical wing of the Reformation; they disagreed with both Luther and Calvin, and Mennonites come from this strand of the Reformation. Agreeing with Luther, the Anabaptists believed there are two kingdoms–the kingdoms of the world and the kingdom of Christ–and that the kingdoms of the world operate from force to provide justice and order whereas the kingdom of Christ operates from nonviolent love. They also agreed with Luther that it is not possible for the kingdoms of the world to become the kingdom of Christ because it is not possible for worldly governments to operate from love. But unlike Luther, they held that the Christian, by giving loyalty to Christ above all, can no longer do any government function that is contrary to the way of Christ’s love. The church is an alternative kingdom in this world; it is its own government, operating by Christ’s ethic of love. God allows worldly governments to use force for the sake of order and justice, but that is for the unredeemed. The redeemed do not require the use of force; our life together is ordered by love and we never use force to defend ourselves.

This position led, logically, to most Mennonites (and especially the Amish) withdrawing from political engagement in government. They did not run for office or vote in elections. Worldly governments operate contrary to Christ’s law of love and thus are incompatible for those who follow Christ. But in the latter half of the 20th century, this position began to change, partly due to the influence of Quakers and the civil rights movement led by Martin Luther King Jr.

Quakers: Quakers agree with Calvin that it is the task of the church to transform government, to make it more like the kingdom of Christ. But unlike Calvin, Quakers agreed with Anabaptists that Christ’s kingdom relies on love, not force or violence. But unlike Luther and the Anabaptists, Quakers believe that it is possible for governments to become nonviolent and operate from the ethic of love. This is possible, according to Quakers, because the light of Christ is in everything. The Gospel of John says that everything was created through the Word which enlightens all things. So Christ’s way of love is inherent in everything and everyone. The task of the church is to call out that light of Christ that is in everything and everyone. William Penn, a Quaker, established Pennsylvania on this principle. For seventy years the commonwealth of Pennsylvania (largely made up of pacifist Quakers, Mennonites, and Church of the Brethren) had no militia and fostered peaceful relations with native tribes by honoring all treaties. But as Pennsylvania became filled with settlers not sharing this commitment, the Quaker legislature was forced to resign when the settlers demanded a militia to fight in the French and Indian War.

In the 1950s and 1960s American society saw the power of nonviolent love in action through the civil rights movement. This convinced many Mennonites that justice could be achieved in broad society without having to use force or violence. Maybe the government (local and national) could move, step by step, toward more love and less use of force while also providing justice. Many Mennonites concluded that the role of the church should be to be a witness of nonviolent love and justice for influencing and persuading the government. This opened the door to voting and running for office–so long as one did not have to approve the use of violence. The goal is not to make the government “Christian” (only those who make their own freely chosen commitment to Christ are Christian), but to bend the government toward Christ’s way of love, and justice for the weak and excluded.

So the Mennonite approach to relating to the state has become more similar to the Quakers–more engaging and more optimistic of what is possible in the “kingdoms of the world.” But Mennonites do not endorse passing laws forcing all people to adopt our specific Christian ethic. The law must be nonsectarian, not based on any particular religion. Separation of church and state, and supporting democracy based on a pluralistic society of freely chosen faiths in which the government does not privilege a particular religion, is basic to the Mennonite understanding of what it means to be Christian.