Previous | Next

Fall 2025 · Vol. 54 No. 2 · pp. 179–198 

Pietism and Pragmatism: North American MBs and Politics

Brian Cooper

In 2006, I defended my doctoral thesis on sixteenth-century Anabaptist theologies of church and state. Later that year, I became part of a church in the Canadian Conference of Mennonite Brethren Churches (CCMBC). My expectation was that Mennonite Brethren (MB) are self-consciously a part of the Anabaptist peace tradition, meaning that nonviolence is an essential component of the work of reconciliation that is a high calling in the Anabaptist tradition.

Although early theological statements and resolutions dictated that political involvement was not to be countenanced, a combination of the absence of further conversation and the slow press of cultural and political forces changed how Mennonites set priorities and discerned their actions.

Harold Bender’s depiction of the origin and uniformity of Anabaptist origins may be rightly contested, but his simple definition of the “Anabaptist Vision” remains a helpful rubric for Anabaptism broadly, as “first, a new conception of the essence of Christianity as discipleship; second, a new conception of the church as a brotherhood; and third, a new ethic of love and nonresistance.” 1 p. 180

Upon entering the MB church where I first served on the pastoral staff, I was surprised to see a large display in the church foyer reminding congregants that one of their own was serving with the U.S. marines in Iraq. This did not correspond to any conception I had of Mennonite Brethren, nor did it seem compatible with anything I had read in the Anabaptist tradition.

In many respects, North American Mennonite Brethren have become a fairly representative evangelical denomination that, in its theology of church and state, differs little from other church groups. The Canadian and American Mennonite Brethren Confessions of Faith each acknowledge the primary allegiance of MBs “to Christ’s kingdom, not the state or society.” 2 Mennonite Brethren have widely seen their origins as a recovery of “much of the biblical orientation of apostolic Christianity and of the early Anabaptist movement” 3 and have long identified, at least formally, with nonparticipation in secular government and nonresistance as core theological principles.

In contrast to this theological stance, MB political scientist and longtime conference leader John H. Redekop, one of the more influential MB thinkers of the past fifty years, shows how far MB theology has come. In his 2007 book Politics Under God, he attempted to articulate a biblically faithful evangelical Anabaptist church-state theology for twenty-first century North Americans. He writes (in response to a critique of his book in Direction journal):

I . . . explain in several chapters why it is that the New Testament ethic given to Christians and the church is not also an ethical instruction for the state. The Christian gospel, I stress, is, however, still relevant for the state; it ought to play a major contributory role in the development of public policies and should positively impact political behavior. 4

Redekop’s assertion that the Christian gospel is “relevant for the state” even as he dismisses it as binding for the state reveals the lack of theological clarity that exists among Mennonite Brethren in these matters.

How does one account for this change in posture and for the diversity of practice among Canadian Mennonite Brethren? That is the focus of this essay’s brief treatment of politics among North American Mennonite Brethren.

I am not attempting to trace the history of Mennonite Brethren engagement with politics in this paper. This work has been done capably elsewhere by historians. 5 As a theologian, my aim is to provide a theological analysis and critique of MB political engagement. My thesis is that there p. 181 has existed a lack of theological clarity regarding the relationship of MBs to politics—both processes and structures. Assuming that the forces at play are a given rather than subjecting them to a critical theological examination, they fail to see how they might frame a robust theological response. Over time, MB leaders have given little practical counsel about how to engage political affairs. Consequently, MB political engagement has been uncritical, ad hoc, and fragmented.

Anabaptist scholars like Harold Bender postulated that Anabaptist theology came from a singularly identifiable stream that could be used as a reference point for measuring all other instances of the Anabaptist tradition. In the course of my graduate studies, I had already learned that Anabaptist origins were more diverse and complicated than had formerly been assumed. 6

When I entered the MB conference, I soon became aware that the same was true of MB theology. MB confessions of faith spell out, at least at a high level, what faithfulness looks like for believers in relation to politics. However, throughout their history, Mennonite Brethren responses to state authority, political processes, and military activity by nations were far more diverse—even inconsistent—than denominational confessional documents would indicate. This diversity prevails to the present, a result of several factors that have waxed and waned in prominence alongside the evolution of the MB community as it grew and migrated to North America.

The Problem of Mennonite Identity

If a lack of theological clarity about how to engage political structures and processes has not been enough of a problem for understanding MB political engagement, then the problem of Mennonite-MB identity is a compounding factor that almost eliminates the possibility of describing such political engagement. Several authors, including John Redekop and Bruce Guenther, have written on the topic of what it means to be Mennonite Brethren. 7 The problem is that both Redekop and Guenther offer only descriptive accounts of Mennonite Brethren identity, which allows for a phenomenological understanding of identity but does not create space for the shaping of identity, thought, or actions.

John Redekop’s definition of what it means to be Mennonite (and, by extension, Mennonite Brethren) is repeated in a 1993 conference paper: “Suffice it to say here that Mennonites in Canada and the United States, and traditional Mennonite communities in certain other countries, are best understood as being an ethnoreligious group with significant subgroups.” 8 The sort of social-theological amalgam Redekop suggests may reflect p. 182 self-perception well, but it does not align with the historical-theological realities of the MB tradition, or the Mennonite tradition.

Both Mennonites and MBs arose as theologically rooted movements that separated themselves from the cultural contexts in which they were situated. On an ethnic-social level, MBs were indistinguishable from their Mennonite neighbors. It was only in light of their theological commitments that they were different. It is an incidental fact of history that the renewal movement that MBs represent happened in an ethnic enclave in South Russia. Because of the need to maintain the purity of their ecclesial community, MBs attended to theological considerations that distinguished them from members of the larger Mennonite community.

However, Mennonite Brethren leaders were not adept at distinguishing between theological and cultural identifiers, either in South Russia or in North America. Their inclination was to retain their German language and culture for use in preserving what were thought to be theologically threatening cultural influences from outside the MB community. This became a more pressing consideration when MBs began to migrate to North America and face the challenge of living as a discrete community among other immigrants, and as MBs attempted to relate with American and Canadian governments in the interest of securing advantageous settlement conditions. Principally, the latter involved exemption from military service and control over the education of their children.

Already in Russia, MB leaders who began to search for theological resources for their new movement “found common cause more along linguistic and relational lines than along theological ones, cooperating with German-speaking Pietist, Allianz, and German Baptist leaders who shared their literalistic biblicist orientation and revivalist sympathies.” 9 This practice continued in North America.

In terms of political theology, the diverse theologies among the groups weakened MB commitment to the political theology that had initially set them apart. They increasingly saw elements of their confessional theology of church and state as established theological tradition arising from Mennonite history but not as essential for their continued identity.

For example, nonviolence was to be retained as much because it afforded Mennonites the opportunity not to fight and die in a war fought on behalf of “capitalist industry and power-hungry diplomats” as because Mennonites were committed not to kill in time of war. 10 And Mennonites were definitely willing to self-advocate with governing authorities so that they might perpetuate the privileges they enjoyed or negotiate them in p. 183 other jurisdictions in times of migration—this despite an official commitment to political noninvolvement. Mennonite and Mennonite Brethren leaders exhibited a “lack of understanding of the political structure and processes in their new homeland” that led them to make direct appeals to government officials their preferred form of self-advocacy. 11 Mennonite delegates seemed to harbor expectations of Mennonite nonparticipation in war as a perpetual privilege. In 1940 after the outbreak of World War II, for example, eight Mennonite leaders, including B. B. Janz and C. F. Klassen from the Mennonite Brethren, met with federal government officials in Ottawa to propose forms of alternative service so that Mennonites could avoid military service. 12 Another delegation met with Prime Minister John Diefenbaker to discuss a similar proposal in 1960. 13

In South Russia and later in North America, MBs were particularly eager to adopt a loyal posture, often to shed the alien reputation they had as German-speaking immigrants in a country frequently hostile to Germanness. 14 Mennonites and MBs alike worked to cultivate reputations for being peaceable and responsible citizens, but they were also increasingly susceptible to the merging of their religious commitments with their language and culture. This led to some problematic developments in Mennonite and MB history.

Bruce Guenther has made whimsical observations about the preference of early twentieth-century MB leaders like B. B. Janz for the German language, as well as the pressure exerted by Bible college students for instruction in English. 15 But not all of the syncretism of Germanness and Anabaptism was inoffensive, politically or theologically. The most difficult period of Canadian Mennonite-MB history seems to be the period from the mid-1930s through World War II when the affinity many Mennonites harbored for German culture translated into varying levels of support for the Nazi party and its leader, Adolf Hitler.

One prominent MB leader, who served as “commissioner for the Canadian Mennonite Board of Colonization for the immigration to Canada 1921–25 and later, and for the Mennonite Central Committee,” was B. H. Unruh. 16 “Unruh saw no contradiction in being a faithful Christian in the Mennonite tradition and being a supporter of Adolf Hitler and the racial policies of the Nazi party. His pro-German Mennonite orientation, growing pro-Nazism, and explicit promotion of the German racial purity of the Russian Mennonites” are a stain on the history of MB political engagement, and they are not an isolated occurrence. 17

In Winnipeg, Mennonites participated in the late 1930s in the “German Days” that “became infamous for the public exhibitions of support for Nazi p. 184 Germany.” 18 C. F. Klassen, “European Commissioner for Refugee Aid and Resettlement under the MCC in Europe from December 1945 until his death” in 1954, facilitated the emigration of Danzig Mennonites to North America after World War II. 19 B. H. Unruh had bragged in 1938 that an “overwhelming majority of the elders and ministers in West Prussia and Danzig [were] members of the [Nazi] Party.” 20 It appears that Klassen’s assistance in helping these Mennonite Nazis escape justice involved some form of concealment of their wartime political affiliation, and possibly even war crimes. MCC argued that Danzig Mennonites were actually Dutch rather than German in order to enable them to qualify to migrate to Allied countries after the war. 21

MBs made no mention of these affiliations after the war and made no efforts to hold individuals to account for their actions. “After the Third Reich collapsed, Mennonite leaders from Danzig falsely portrayed themselves as victims of fascist persecution.” What these leaders failed to acknowledge was that they were active participants in the activities of the German occupiers of the Danzig corridor. Bruno Ewert, for example, elder of the Heubuden church who helped C. F. Klassen work for the passage of Mennonite refugees after World War II, was a member of the Nazi party. 22 Ewert himself even tried to rehabilitate his wartime actions and those of other Danzig Mennonites after the war in an article published in Mennonite Life in 1948. 23

There is no doubt that many Mennonites in Europe faced difficult situations, but the overarching political posture of many was guided by pragmatism rather than theological convictions. It is likely, based on the strong connections between North American and European Mennonites and the support for MCC from North American Mennonites and MBs, that the sympathies for Nazi German policies—particularly the advancement of German culture and language and virulent opposition to communism—was shared to some degree on both sides of the Atlantic and especially in Canada. Strikingly, both Der Bote (influential especially among Mennonites) and Die Mennonitische Rundschau (which served Mennonite Brethren) published army recruitment notices on behalf of the German consul. 24

Mennonite-MB Germanism also gave soft but explicit support for the antisemitism of the Nazi Reich. Canadian Mennonite historian Frank Epp has documented the published comments by Mennonite and MB leaders in the 1930s. Shortly after Adolf Hitler’s rise to power in Germany in 1933, MB leader C. F. Klassen wrote in Mennonite periodical Der Bote that “we thank God, that at last a man has been found, who consolidated the national p. 185 idea, who had courage to clean up the social democratic rottenness, the Communist insanity, and many Jewish machinations . . . .” 25

Prominent Canadian churchman Oswald J. Smith, founder of the People’s Church in Toronto, wrote in Der Bote in 1936 about his visit to Germany, stating,

Girls no longer painted their lips and cheeks, and how beautiful they looked! Papers no longer advertised birth control methods, which before Hitler’s time had been openly discussed by the young people. Jews, responsible for much promiscuity (in one school a Jew had taken the virtue of 400 girls—this the parents had confirmed) were being disciplined. 26

In addition, there were more overt approvals given to Nazi racial ideas. Canadian Mennonite Walter Quiring wrote an article in Der Bote in 1936 titled “Mixed Blood is Poison.” 27 Officially, Mennonites may have opposed warfare, politicking, and racism, but such ideas circulated widely in Mennonite circles nonetheless.

Features of Mennonite Brethren Political Theology

Pietism

Two features characterize MB political theology historically. The first element is the normativity of pietism. MB pietism has long inclined many Mennonite Brethren to focus their theology of discipleship on the cultivation of personal piety, often at the expense of outward activism such as the engagement of political structures. The MB theology of secular government has not deviated significantly from that articulated in the Rudnerweide confession of 1853, the confession that the early MB community adopted for theological guidance until it created its own in 1902. The Rudnerweide confession states that God “has established kings and government in all lands for the common good and mutual benefit of the people so that they may lead a good, honorable, civil life.” 28

This statement affirms simply what secular government is intended to do—work for the common good and mutual benefit of all. It acknowledges that it is empowered to protect the good and punish the evil and calls for Christians to submit to its authority and pray for government. But the implication of MB political theology is that secular authority operates in a different way and at a different level of justice compared to the kingdom of God. As a result, MB confessional theology is silent about the issue of participation in, or influence upon, secular government authority. Believers were believed to be called to concern themselves with the higher p. 186 righteousness of the kingdom of God, not the lesser righteousness of the kingdom of this world. A resolution passed by Mennonite Brethren in 1890 urged that members were to “refrain from participation and involvement in the contentions of political parties, but are permitted to vote quietly at elections, and may also vote for prohibition.” 29 This separation was reinforced by the influence of dispensational theology, which insisted that Christians should “not expect any improvement until the last dispensation and the millennial age was ushered in by Christ’s second coming.” 30

Rather, the focus of MB theological statements is that believers should live lives of godliness that will neither harm others nor incur the wrath of governments. This is evident in multiple exhortations in which MBs focused on individual conduct in relation to traditional measures of righteous behavior—e.g., abstinence from alcohol, 31 marital chastity, 32 resistance to swearing, and humility in business 33—as the primary embodiment of biblical norms of godliness. Personal piety was enjoined on MBs—the saloon, the circus, and tobacco were out of bounds 34—but social and political dimensions of discipleship were not seen as important elements of faith.

The only meaningful interaction Mennonite Brethren had with government initially was via their attempts to gain recognition for themselves with the Russian government by arguing that they remained true Mennonites, despite their secession from the Mennonite Church. But this posture quickly muddied the waters by creating a dissonant set of identities for Mennonite Brethren—one theological and one ethno-cultural—that have dogged the movement to the present day.

In the late nineteenth century, Mennonite Brethren pietism seemed to incline them to maintain a deliberate theological distance from not only political affairs but also other Christians that were not like-minded. Early resolutions of the newly formed North American General Conference called for quiet participation in electoral processes but called for believers to refrain from partisan politics and holding public office. 35 It is noteworthy that an 1893 resolution specifically proscribed the offices of justice of the peace and constable. But there seems to be no consideration of other positions at any level of government, including elected ones, suggesting that holding these positions ought not to be entertained at all.

It is also noteworthy that an 1878 resolution elevated MB political convictions about nonviolence to a high level of importance. It states: “That since we believe and teach nonresistance, we withdraw from the fellowship of the resistant Baptists, sincerely believing that this is in keeping with the Word of God.” 36 This is interesting in light of the close ties MBs p. 187 and Baptists had in Russia, where Baptists were formative leaders for the development of early MB theology.

Silence

The second major characteristic of MB political theology that needs to be recognized is the MB tendency toward silence in controversial areas of theology, such as nonresistance or politics. MBs tended not to expand on or clarify early statements, choosing rather to leave them than simply expecting adherence to them. For example, these early resolutions give a fascinating window into MB reflection on political involvement because they represent the last official resolutions by MB delegates for over seventy years. Abe Dueck noted: “In the late nineteenth century in North America the MBs resolved not to become too involved in political institutions. The topic was not discussed again on the General Conference floor until 1966.” 37 The absence of direction or clarification created a space for the variety of diverse expressions that persists to the present day.

The only mention made by MBs in conference resolutions regarding matters of political importance was a pair of resolutions opposed to conscription in 1945. 38 It seems that in virtually every other area of social or economic life, resolutions framed moral injunctions against what was seen as foolish, immoral, or scandalous behavior that would compromise the integrity or witness of the community. For example, an 1889 resolution on “Extensive debts and complicated business transactions” exhorted church members that,

because of the dangers, as numerous examples give evidence, that if brethren enter into extensive debts and mortgages, through complicated business deals, and also when brethren resort to legal means of pressure (foreclosure), the Conference seriously warns against such behavior and desires that every brother, rich or poor, keep his conscience unspotted and retain a position of humility before the Lord. 39

Nowhere in view is any effort to leverage political structures to change legislation governing debts and mortgages to alleviate the burden of what were often predatory financial practices in the late nineteenth century. Officially, at a conference level, the mandate remained to maintain a level of godliness that would help MBs avoid the pitfalls to which others might fall prey. The only exception was the consistent call for governments not to conscript their young men for military service. p. 188

A 1962 article by Vernon Ratzlaff in the newly established Mennonite Brethren Herald acknowledged the lack of attention to the development of an MB theology of political engagement beyond the insistence upon the avoidance of military service. Ratzlaff wrote, “The perspective from which we must view the matter of politics is that formed by the combination of the concepts of non-resistance and discipleship. Probably we have not talked about these two concepts as much as we should have. The conferences which we hold often deal only with non-resistance on the negative level of non-participation in war.” 40

The MB orientation toward piety was the primary consideration governing the one exercise that MBs were overtly permitted to engage—voting. MB discernment in such matters meant that political candidates in elections of various kinds were selected primarily based on whether or not they appeared, from a sectarian MB perspective, to be individuals of godly character.

MB voters were exhorted to vote for candidates who trusted in God and whose party platforms were in line with “Christian principles.” John Redekop wrote in 1972 that “he heartily supported ‘Christians who try sincerely to apply Christ’s teachings in the realm of public life.’ ” 41 Political decisions were seen as straightforward extensions of the same rules of godliness that applied to every Mennonite Brethren Christian. The complexities of modern political affairs did not seem to burden the average MB reader, or leader, for that matter—at least not according to the language they used to give advice.

Biblicism

It is axiomatic to consider that Mennonite Brethren, as self-professed “people of the Book,” 42 prefer what they call biblical theology to systematic theology. The operative question in Mennonite Brethren theological conversations has long been “Was sagt das Wort?” (What does the Word/Bible say?). The primary focus of study among MB conference leaders has been exposition of Scripture. But the question of what the Bible may say in relation to a particular question is far from the most fruitful way to address pressing issues. MBs have done themselves a disservice by focusing narrowly on biblicism as the basis for constructing their common life. 43 After all, Scripture says a lot of things. The choice of which biblical texts are relevant to a particular issue reveals that there are often unacknowledged hermeneutical choices involved in the discernment processes. p. 189

Nonresistance

Nonresistance has been a core theological commitment in much of the Anabaptist tradition since the sixteenth century, and Mennonite Brethren retained this commitment after their secession from the Mennonite church in Russia. This meant that, in relation to government, MBs sought to maintain their place within the Privilegium issued to Mennonites. A primary conviction that MBs sought to preserve was their exemption from military service.

The rationale for Mennonite nonresistance, which MBs readily accepted, is rooted in the example of Christ. The concept of discipleship as Nachfolge Christi was seen as directly applicable to the life of every believer. 44 But MBs soon discovered that Scripture says many things, and MB leaders lacked a consistent theological hermeneutic to help them understand how to interpret Scripture in an orderly fashion, allowing for the development of a full-orbed spirituality for the community. In place of this, MBs relied on the counsel of leaders who shared a common language—German—and who confessed, as they did, a desire to be faithful to Scripture and the lordship of Christ. This sounds good as a generality, but history shows that it did not turn out as well as MB leaders hoped.

The excesses of the Froeliche Richtung were a time when Mennonite Brethren reacted with wild abandon against the strict formalism of Mennonite spirituality. Feeling a new freedom arising from the evangelical theology MBs learned from German Baptists, MBs engaged in wild dancing, exuberant displays of affection, and subjected leaders who did not support their excesses to indiscriminate use of the ban before corrections were made. 45 These developments are an example of a common inability of MBs to overcome their biblicist naiveté and construct a thoughtful and robustly biblical theological system. It is also evidence of the loose governance that has characterized MB ecclesial life and hampered attempts to forge consensus on important issues.

Another example of the shortcomings of these elements of MB theology is in relation to the development of a thorough theology of nonresistance. 46 MB association with Baptists exposed them to Baptist ideas about the legitimacy of state power and the faithful response of Christians to its exercise. This created a theological ambiguity that resulted in an increasingly varied assortment of MB views in relation to nonviolence, all of which were seen as biblical because each one’s proponents could cite a proof text in its defense. Johann Pritzkau recalled that there was already an MB party in Russia that p. 190

shared the views of the Baptists on the military issue. They were in agreement with the Baptist Confession of Faith. While they, as all true Christians, did not want war, they did on the other hand recognize that humanity cannot survive without government and that government cannot survive without the military. 47

Nevertheless, as I noted, MBs passed a resolution indicating that nonresistance was not a secondary issue, but rather one that could necessitate break in fellowship with resistant Baptists.

The passage of time brought about increasing divergence among MBs on the matter of what citizens were called to do in time of war. Anti-German sentiment during World War I had caused some to reconsider the feasibility of their commitment to nonviolence. As the threat of war loomed larger in the 1930s, there was no consensus about how MBs should respond. While some MBs retained this commitment to nonviolence and rejected any form of military service, others decided that alternative military service that did not involve the use of weapons, such as service in an army’s medical corps, would be allowable. Others attempted to negotiate some form of nonmilitary alternative service such as forestry work. Still others believed that a citizen’s call to be subject to government meant that military service in time of war is obligatory, perhaps even salutary.

Increasingly, the MBs who followed more mainstream Christian ways of thinking reflected less biblically and more pragmatically about what Christians should do in wartime. This pragmatism came to feature prominently in MB political theology, especially in the absence of specific discernment about how to engage in the political realm.

As previously noted, Mennonite Brethren, in line with the structures of the larger Mennonite church, associated only loosely, so it is imprudent to attempt to portray a consensus on any particular issue. In the early days of the Mennonite Brethren movement, the Russian minister of the interior, P. A. Valuev, made the following observation during his examination of Mennonite Brethren as a group distinct from the Mennonite church in Russia:

The Mennonites do not have a supreme spiritual authority, held in honor by all, who could restore unity among the congregations in case of dispute. Our government provided the Mennonites with freedom of their religion and had no reason to intervene in their internal quarrels. But now, because of the emergence of new interpretations and because of that trend towards conversion of Orthodox believers p. 191 and of other believers, we had to intervene. The new interpretations make them hostile to the state and to public morality. 48

Mennonite Brethren, despite their desire to maintain unity, have never taken the steps to create complete unity on any theological issue. Further, the theological influences on the movement—from what MBs learned from the way Mennonite congregations related to one another to the congregationalism they imbibed from German Baptists—hindered attempts at creating unity.

Johann Pritzkau related, in connection to theological conversations between Baptists and Mennonite Brethren, that there was significant support among MBs for the idea that nonresistance was among theological convictions “viewed as peripheral,” unlike essential matters such as justification by faith, baptism, and the Lord’s Supper. 49 It is therefore unwise to try to purport that MBs were uniformly nonresistant. It is not clear that they ever were, even though their confessional theology asserted nonresistance as a commitment.

In the past, nonresistance has served to define authentic Anabaptist-Mennonite theology. While this may have been true more as a shibboleth than as a genuine conviction, its value continues to the present. 50 The many historical deviations from nonresistant discipleship are departures from the center. It is by means of the filter of commitment to nonresistance that MBs have explained the Selbstschutz units organized during the Russian Revolution and Civil War as deviations from authentic discipleship. 51 It explains the surprisingly high number (in light of their confessional theologies) of Mennonite and MB men who performed military service in World War II, among other conflicts. According to statistics compiled by Nathan Dirks, forty-one percent of Canadians conscripted and over fifty percent of Americans actively performed military service during the war. 52

Despite the place of nonresistance as a defining element of Anabaptist-Mennonite theology, little constructive attention seems to have been given to it in official MB materials. Tellingly, the matter of MB nonresistance was raised as an issue only during wartime. For example, the only General Conference resolutions related to military service were passed in 1945 when two were approved. One opposed military conscription. The other asked members of the “Public Relations Committee to lead us in exercising proper influence against peace-time conscription of our young men, but that in case of its inevitable enactment, we favor asking for special provisions of service in a non-military capacity.” 53 In other words, p. 192 Mennonite Brethren did not support conscription, but if it had to happen, they wished to be exempted from it.

In light of the statistics, as well as the early diversity of opinion on nonresistance, it does not seem unreasonable to believe that commitment to it was more of a tradition than a compelling theological conviction. It may even have been that some MBs viewed it as a privilege that they were unwilling to relinquish than a commitment for which they were willing to make sacrifices (although many did). B. H. Unruh, brother of MB educator A. H. Unruh, exemplified an attitude that needs to be taken seriously as a theological orientation for many MBs in Europe and North America.

On June 7, 1917, Unruh gave a major address on nonresistance at the request of the General Conference of Mennonite Congregations in Russia. After a lengthy account of the Mennonite “dogma” of nonresistance, Unruh prepared listeners for the real possibility that Mennonites could lose their special privileges in a political environment in which all citizens shared the same rights and responsibilities. In this case, they would have to consider accommodation “like the Mennonites in the West [i.e., Germany],” Unruh suggested. But even if they were guaranteed a nonresistant option under the new government, elders and ministers should extend patience and tolerance to their fellow believers who might take up the sword and participate in military service. 54

The demands of citizenship made dogmas like nonresistance inexpedient, and so theological commitments, in Unruh’s view, would need to be reevaluated in light of different priorities. This seems to have been borne out in the differing responses to the challenge of wartime conscription among North American Mennonites, including Mennonite Brethren.

More recently, the demands of citizenship have come to feature prominently in MB political theology. As an example, MB pastor Roger Poppen presented a plenary session at the 2013 U.S. Mennonite Brethren Conference (USMBC) study conference, titled “A Case for Legitimate Protective Violence.” 55 The study conference was part of a process that led to the adoption of a revised article 13 by the USMB conference in 2014. 56 The NFLT of the Canadian MB conference has noted that article 13 on “Love and Nonresistance” is the most difficult and problematic article in the Canadian MB confession of faith as indicated by Canadian MB pastors. 57 p. 193

Partisanship and Anti-Communism

In Canada, the majority of political support from Mennonites was initially for the Liberal Party, the party that formed the government that had welcomed Mennonites into the country. But this was support, not participation. Mennonite participation in federal politics was slow to come in Canada. The mandate to keep clear of partisanship remained dominant among MBs some time, even though they had pursued candidacies at the municipal and provincial levels. Locally, opportunity was given to participate in public conversation via voting and engagement of political processes, including partisan ones, both as candidates and supporters. However, support of Mennonite candidates by other Mennonites was often related as much to personal support of an individual within the matrix of Mennonite connections as it was based on party platforms. 58

At any rate, Mennonite support in Canadian federal politics for the first half of the twentieth century lay primarily with the Liberal party. 59 A Liberal Canadian government had granted Mennonites exemption from military service in the 1870s and another, under longtime Prime Minister W. L. Mackenzie King, welcomed Mennonite refugees, including many Mennonite Brethren, from the Soviet Union in the 1920s. The perspective that federal Liberals were instruments of God’s blessing on faithful Mennonites was bolstered by articles like the one written by C. F. Klassen titled “Unser Prime Minister,” published in the Mennonitische Rundschau in June 1945. 60 Although official endorsements of political candidates was proscribed by a conference resolution against political involvement, such an article, printed in an official denominational periodical, would have been seen as a tacit sign of theological approval.

In federal politics, Canadian Mennonite support began to shift toward the Conservative and then the Progressive Conservative party in the late 1950s with the rise of charismatic leader John Diefenbaker. Diefenbaker’s German ancestry and Baptist church background resonated with Mennonite voters attracted by his “semi-religious style of delivering political addresses . . . .” 61 The combination of Diefenbaker’s religious background and ethnicity with the social conservatism of the Progressive Conservative party made his party an attractive option for Mennonites.

Provincially, a good many Mennonites were attracted to the Social Credit party. The fundamentalist evangelical theology of Social Credit party founder Bill Aberhart struck a chord with a variety of Mennonites, including MBs, and his right-leaning political views and anti-communism were popular with Mennonites who had lived through the Russian revolution and Stalin’s purges. 62 Indeed, anti-communism was a de facto pillar p. 194 in Mennonite Brethren political theology. Although never the subject of a conference resolution, communism was seen as a political evil to which MB Christians were called to respond, and a frequent topic in the Mennonite Brethren Herald. 63

It seems that Mennonites associated (rightly) the communist/socialist ideology of Russian Bolsheviks with atheism. Having seen the effects of their rejection of organized religion and persecution of Christians of various kinds, Mennonites were wary of any political party that seemed too comfortable with socialist ideas. The Cooperative Commonwealth Federation (CCF) was a democratic socialist party established in part by individuals with Christian ideas and was popularized in Saskatchewan by former Baptist minister Tommy Douglas. There were fears that its socialist leanings were too close to communism; these were intensified when it merged with the Canadian Labour Congress in 1961 and shed its Christian commitments. Thereafter, it fell out of favor with many Mennonites who both feared labor unions and saw the party as not adequately opposed to communism. 64

Longtime Herald columnist and MB political scientist John Redekop wrote a noteworthy article in January 1968 called “Principles of Christian Anti-Communism.” 65 Redekop’s basic starting premise was that “[as] a philosophy communism is un-Christian.” 66 His goal was to help readers understand that while all faithful Christian discipleship is anti-communist, not all anti-communism is faithful to Christ’s call to love others. Redekop’s exhortation was that the MB faithful should reject communism but love communists because of Christ’s command and example.

Conclusion: MB Political Theology in Practice

Mennonites, including MBs, were attracted to North America because of the promise of liberal democratic governments to deliver what had been obtained formerly only via a Privilegium—freedoms that Mennonites feared losing in Russia and that they believed to be necessary for their flourishing as a religious community. In the New World, they entered into a setting where political engagements of various kinds were not only possible, but often welcomed, especially when Mennonites began to be courted as a voting bloc by political parties.

Although early theological statements and resolutions dictated that political involvement was not to be countenanced, a combination of the absence of further conversation and the slow press of cultural and political forces changed how Mennonites set priorities and discerned their actions. Pragmatic self-interest began to supplant theological principles p. 195 as the primary motivator in matters of political significance. The lure of prosperity and security replaced visible ecclesiological particularity as the goal of political action for many Mennonites, especially when it became less clear whether being Mennonite was a matter of theological conviction or ethnic identity.

Today, Mennonite Brethren are at pains to identify themselves in either ethnic or theological terms, even in spite of their historic confessional commitments. More work is necessary to trace MB political engagement in a detailed way, but as a theologian, I believe that the even greater task is to recover the will to return to a Mennonite Brethren theological vision that desires to live politically in a way that draws attention to the explicit example of Jesus Christ. May it be so.

Notes

  1. Harold S. Bender, The Anabaptist Vision (Scottdale, PA: Herald, 1944), 20.
  2. Article 12, “The MB Confession of Faith (full text).” Canadian Conference of Mennonite Brethren Churches, https://www.mennonitebrethren.ca/the-mb-confession-of-faith-full-text/#elementor-toc__heading-anchor-11; “Confession of Faith.” U.S. Conference of Mennonite Brethren Churches, https://usmb.org/confession-of-faith-4/.
  3. John A. Toews, A History of the Mennonite Brethren Church (Hillsboro, KS: Mennonite Brethren Publishing House, 1975), 361.
  4. John H. Redekop, “A Response to P. Travis Kroeker’s ‘Messianic Political Theology: Yoder contra Redekop,’ ” Direction 38 (Spring 2009): 70, https://directionjournal.org/38/1/response-to-p-travis-kroekers-messianic.html.
  5. One good volume to consult is James Urry, Mennonites, Politics, and Peoplehood: Europe—Russia—Canada, 1525–1980 (Winnipeg, MB: University of Manitoba Press, 2006).
  6. The shift from the monogenesis theory of Anabaptist origins to that polygenesis theory is widely accepted now, having arrived in the 1970s with the article by James M. Stayer, Werner O. Packull, and Klaus Deppermann, “From Monogenesis to Polygenesis: The Historical Discussion of Anabaptist Origins.” Mennonite Quarterly Review 49, no. 1 (1975): 83–121.
  7. Most notable is John H. Redekop’s work, commissioned by the Board of Spiritual and Social Concerns of the Canadian conference; see John H. Redekop, A People Apart: Ethnicity and the Mennonite Brethren (Winnipeg MB: Kindred, p. 196 1987). See also Bruce L. Guenther, “From Isolation and Ethnic Homogeneity to Acculturation and Multi-cultural Diversity: The Mennonite Brethren and Canadian Culture,” Direction 39 (Fall 2010): 138–61.
  8. John H. Redekop, “Decades of Transition: North American Mennonite Brethren in Politics, 1940–1960” (conference paper, 1993), 2.
  9. Brian Cooper, “What’s in a Narrative? Canadian Mennonite Brethren and the Struggle for Identity,” Conrad Grebel Review 37 (Fall 2019): 271.
  10. The language cited here came from a 1934 Mennonite Brethren conference resolution, but sentiments among many other Mennonite groups were similar. Frank H. Epp, Mennonites in Canada, 1920–1940: A People’s Struggle for Survival (Toronto, ON: Macmillan, 1982), 570.
  11. Urry, 201.
  12. John A. Toews, 355.
  13. T. D. Regehr, Mennonites in Canada, 1939–1970: A People Transformed (Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press, 1996), 383.
  14. Rachael Wedel, “Prohibition and Religion: Mennonite Brethren and the Temperance Movement, 1900–1940s,” Mennonite Life 69 (2015), https://mla.bethelks.edu/ml-archive/2015/prohibition-and-religion-mennonite-brethren-and-th.php.
  15. Guenther, “Isolation and Ethnic Homogeneity,” 141–42.
  16. Harold S. Bender, “Unruh, Benjamin Heinrich (1881–1959)” in Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia Online, https://gameo.org/index.php?title=Unruh,_Benjamin_Heinrich_(1881-1959).
  17. Editor’s update, “Unruh, Benjamin Heinrich (1881–1959)” in GAMEO (see prev. note).
  18. Urry, 237.
  19. Harold S. Bender and Richard D. Thiessen, “Klassen, Cornelius Franz ‘C. F.’ (1894–1954),” Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia Online, https://gameo.org/index.php?title=Klassen,_Cornelius_Franz_%22C._F.%22_(1894-1954).
  20. Arnold Neufeldt-Fast, “Benjamin Unruh, Nazism, and MCC,” Mennonite Quarterly Review 96, no. 2 (2022), 183.
  21. T. D. Regehr, “Of Dutch or German Ancestry? Mennonite Refugees, MCC, and the International Refugee Organization,” Journal of Mennonite Studies 13 (1995): 8.
  22. Ben Goossen, “Hitler’s Mennonite Voters.” Anabaptist Historians, 7 October 2021, https://anabaptisthistorians.org/2021/10/07/hitlers-mennonite-voters/.
  23. Bruno Ewert, “Four Centuries of Prussian Mennonites,” Mennonite Life 3 (April 1948): 10–18.
  24. Epp, 554.
  25. Epp, 550. p. 197
  26. Frank Epp summarizing Oswald J. Smith, “Mein Besuch in Deutschland,” Der Bote, 28 October 1936, cited in Tim Nafziger, “A Window into Antisemitism and Nazism among Mennoregehrnite in North America, Part 1.” Anabaptist World, 30 July 2007, https://anabaptistworld.org/window-antisemitism-nazism-among-mennonite-north-america-part-1/.
  27. “Artfremdes Blut ist Gift” Der Bote, 15 April 1936, cited by Tim Nafziger, “A Window into Antisemitism.”
  28. “Confession, or Short and Simple Statement of Faith (Rudnerweide, Russia, 1853,” Anabaptistwiki, https://anabaptistwiki.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=Confession,_or_Short_and_Simple_Statement_of_Faith_(Rudnerweide,_Russia,_1853).
  29. A. E. Janzen and Herbert Giesbrecht, eds., We Recommend: Recommendations and Resolutions of the General Conference of Mennonite Brethren Churches (Fresno CA: Board of Christian Literature, 1978), 129.
  30. Epp, 559.
  31. “Beverage Alcohol and the Community,” Christian Leader, 20 August 1939, 12.
  32. Marriage has long been a high value for Mennonites and MBs in particular. In 1883, MBs resolved that even the innocent party in a divorce be barred from church membership until the death of the guilty party. Cf. We Recommend, 15.
  33. We Recommend, 12.
  34. We Recommend, 170.
  35. We Recommend, 129.
  36. We Recommend, 4.
  37. Abe J. Dueck, “Church and State: Developments Among Mennonite Brethren in Canada Since World War II,” Direction 10 (July 1981): 31.
  38. We Recommend, 9.
  39. We Recommend, 12.
  40. Vernon Ratzlaff, “The Christian and Politics,” Mennonite Brethren Herald, 27 April 1962, 1.
  41. Dueck, 42.
  42. As noted, for example, by Pierre Gilbert, “On the Relationship Between Biblical and Systematic Theology,” Direction 49 (Fall 2020): 178.
  43. Brian Cooper, “The Theological Poverty of the Mennonite Brethren Vision,” Direction 47 (Fall 2018): 169–83.
  44. John A. Toews, 12.
  45. Paul Toews and Kevin Enns Rempel, eds., For Everything a Season: Mennonite Brethren in North America—An Informal History (Mennonite Brethren Historical Commission: Fresno, CA, 2002), 44.
  46. The terminology in relation to this issue in MB theological reflection is itself indicative of a failure to examine, discern, and clarify matters. I prefer the p. 198 term nonviolence; however, since nonresistance is the more common term, I will use it throughout this essay. A thorough examination of the issue is beyond the scope of this study.
  47. Johann E. Pritzkau, German Baptists in South Russia, trans. Walter Regehr (Winnipeg, MB: Kindred, 2013), 75.
  48. Report of P. A. Valuev, Russian minister of the interior, and his deputy Sievers, c. 1865, cited by James Urry, 123.
  49. Pritzkau, 74.
  50. The issue of what has been and now is remains quite different from that of what should be, of course.
  51. Cornelius Krahn and Al Reimer, “Selbstschutz,” in Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia Online, https://gameo.org/index.php?title=Selbstschutz.
  52. Nathan Dirks, “The Mennonites Go to War: Revisiting Canadian Soldiers During the Second World War,” Journal of Mennonite Studies 34 (2016): 64.
  53. We Recommend, 9.
  54. Neufeldt-Fast, 160.
  55. 2013 study conference, USMBC, https://usmb.org/2013-study-conference/.
  56. As chair of the Canadian Board of Faith and Life (BFL) at the time, I attended the 2014 conference and acknowledged the revision on behalf of the CCMBC.
  57. Personal observation of the author from time on the BFL, now National Faith and Life Team (NFLT).
  58. Urry, 246.
  59. Dueck, 32.
  60. Dueck, 33.
  61. Urry, 219, 342.
  62. Urry, 214.
  63. See, for example, John H. Redekop, “Principles of Christian Anti-Communism,” Mennonite Brethren Herald, 12 January 1968, 4–5, and David Augsburger, “Who is Bringing Communism?” Mennonite Brethren Herald, 19 April 1974, 2–3. The perceived threat of communism was also a concern within the context of other discussions, such as mission; see Eric Fife, “The Changing Face of Missions,” Mennonite Brethren Herald, 1 October 1965, 4–6, 15. And it was a topic raised in many letters to the editor.
  64. Joe Friesen, “ ‘It’s not that the Tories are closer to God, they’re furthest from the Devil’: Politics and Mennonites in Winnipeg, 1945–1999,” Journal of Mennonite Studies 21 (2003): 178–79.
  65. Redekop, “Principles of Christian Anti-Communism,” 4–5.
  66. Redekop, “Principles of Christian Anti-Communism,” 5.
Brian Cooper is Associate Professor of Theology and Interim Academic Dean at MB Seminary in Langley, British Columbia.

Previous | Next