Previous

Spring 2026 · Vol. 55 No. 1 · pp. 17–34 

Peace, Violence, and Article 13

Ken Esau

It is no major secret that significant variation exists among Canadian Mennonite Brethren around the discipleship questions of nonresistance, violence, policing, war, and alternative service expressed in the 1999 version of Article 13 titled, “Love and Nonresistance.” This same challenge led the United States Mennonite Brethren (USMB) Conference in 2014 to approve a revised Article 13 with the new title “Love, Peacemaking and Reconciliation.” 1 Canadian Mennonite Brethren have not yet taken that step.

Since the MB Confession of Faith contains our “biblically based convictions,” it is important to examine Article 13 in light of how the Scripture writers used words for love, nonresistance, peace, peacemaking/peacemaker, reconcile/reconciliation, and violence.

Significant variation of perspective on a Mennonite Brethren (MB) confession article conflicts with our claims that

Individuals and churches are not free to disregard or teach convictions that are not in agreement with the Confession. These convictions are ‘prescriptive’ and ‘normative’ for each and every local MB church and each and every MB leader (credentialed and p. 18 non-credentialed) because we hold these convictions to be faithful to what God is telling us through Scripture. 2

This means that Article 13: Love and Nonresistance cannot be put into the category of a “disputable matter” or something of “secondary importance” that can be ignored by our churches as they focus on what is of real importance (such as, salvation, Scripture, exclusivity of Christ, or sexuality/gender). As a conference, we need to be convinced that the convictions expressed in Article 13 are either faithful to Scripture and therefore worthy to be taught and upheld, or they should be revised.

Background and Historical Development

Canadian Mennonite Brethren have historically identified themselves as part of the Peace Church tradition embracing peacemaking and nonviolence. The first specifically Mennonite Brethren confession of faith from 1902 includes a subsection titled “Concerning Revenge, Non-resistance and Love of Enemies.” While citing lengthy portions of Matthew 5:38-45, Romans 12:17-21, and 1 Peter 2:19-23, the 1902 confession provides only a two-sentence summary of how these Scriptures are to be applied: “No one may practice revenge against his enemies. We also do not feel justified to carry the sword.” 3

This conviction meant that the majority of Canadian MB adherents who faced military conscription in World War II chose and were granted Alternative Service, which involved nonviolent ways of serving their country and fulfilling their government-mandated obligations (e.g., forestry, agriculture).

But a significant minority made a different choice. Ted Regehr argues that only about sixty-three percent of Canadian Mennonites chose Alternative Service (about 7,500 out of 12,000 total conscripts) while the remaining thirty-seven percent entered active military service. 4 While specific data for MB conscripts is not available, 5 it is unlikely to have been much different or the Canadian MB delegates in July of 1948 would not have needed to approve the following resolution: “Every brother in the church needs to know that if he participates in military service he terminates his membership in the church, and can be received back only on the basis of full repentance for his sin.” 6

It may be the brevity of the 1902 confession and the far-from-uniform choices of Mennonite conscripts in the Second World War that resulted in the many extraordinary initiatives put in place later to maintain the MB “peace position” or “peace doctrine”: p. 19

From 1952 to 1967 the Canadian Conference almost annually passed resolutions exhorting the churches to further the teaching of the peace position by 1) the organization of peace conferences in each of the Provinces, 2) the instruction of the peace doctrine in all the Bible schools and Christian high schools, 3) the discussion of the peace position at least once a year in the youth groups, 4) the regular proclamation of the peace witness from the pulpits, 5) the observance of a Peace Sunday in November. 7

An official Peace Committee was created to promote peace and nonresistance in the churches. In 1960, the Canadian MB Conference approved the following: “We recommend that the doctrine of nonresistance and love toward our neighbours be taught systematically in our schools and churches, so that we might not only refuse to take part in war, but also in police and jury service and similar services.” 8 In 1969, in light of the unpopularity of the Vietnam War and growing opposition to both the military and the police, the Canadian MB Conference approved the following statement by the Board of Reference and Counsel: “That we support the government in its efforts to maintain law, order and justice.” 9

The 1902 MB confession employed a lengthy Bible quotation approach along with a short summary statement of application. This model was replaced in 1975, and the new Article XV—titled “Love and Nonresistance”—became an entirely separate article containing six sentences followed by supporting Bible references. It highlighted that MBs “live by the law of love”; practice “the forgiveness of enemies”; have “evangelistic responsibility to present Christ, the Prince of Peace, as the answer to human need, enmity, and violence”; believe that the “evil, brutal and inhuman nature of war stands in contradiction to the new nature of the Christian”; and that “it is not God’s will that Christians take up arms in military service, but that, where possible, they perform alternative service to reduce strife, alleviate suffering and bear witness to the love of Christ.” 10

In 1981, the MB General Conference (which at the time included both the Canadian and US MB conferences) commissioned a resource to explain and presumably defend the MB peace position. This resource, The Power of the Lamb (1986), was intended “to make the case for the biblical peace position for Mennonite Brethren” since “Jesus’ peace teaching is central to the gospel and to the mission of the church.” 11

The 1975 MB confession was revised in 1999, and its new Article 13: Love and Nonresistance was divided into two subtitled paragraphs (“God’s Community of Peace”; “Christian Peacemaking”). This article continues p. 20 to represent the official peace position for Canadian Mennonite Brethren. The 1999 Article 13 expanded on the 1902 and 1975 confessions and calls believers “to be agents of reconciliation in all relationships, to practice love of enemies as taught by Christ, to be peacemakers in all situations.” In addition, it takes the 1975 statement about the “evil, brutal, and inhuman nature of war” and replaces it with a condemnation of all forms of violence: “We view violence in its many different forms as contradictory to the new nature of the Christian. We believe that the evil and inhumane nature of violence is contrary to the gospel of peace.” 12

While there is no longer an official Canadian Conference of Mennonite Brethren Churches (CCMBC) “Peace Committee,” the 2016 CCMBC bylaws states that the Board of Faith and Life (BFL) is “responsible for promoting the Conference’s peace witness in Member Churches and Canada.” 13 The 2021 CCMBC bylaws gave this responsibility to the National Faith and Life Team (NFLT)—the new name for the BFL, 14 which also has the responsibility “[t]o uphold and articulate the Mennonite Brethren theological convictions, consistent with the Confession of Faith, and encourage vital engagement with the Confession of Faith.” The NFLT and the CCMBC Executive Board are the only bodies able to sponsor motions to amend the MB Confession of Faith. 15

Biblical Definitions and Article 13

The 1999 version of Article 13 assumes a shared understanding of the following key words: love, nonresistance, peace, peacemaking/peacemaker, reconcile/reconciliation, and violence. Since the MB Confession of Faith contains our “biblically based convictions,” 16 it is important to examine Article 13 in light of how the Scripture writers used such words. 17

Love

Bible Terms. For the biblical writers, the fundamental meaning of love (ḥesed, ʾahavah [Heb.], agapē [Gr.]) toward another human implies undeserved and ongoing self-sacrificing actions that contribute to the well-being of the other. 18 When Jesus declares “love your enemies” in Luke 6:27, he provides clarity that this means to “do good to those who hate you.” 19 Biblical love directed to other humans is action-oriented and in pursuit of their good. Love does not necessarily mean doing what the other person wants—but doing what will ultimately produce good.

Love in Article 13. The word love shows up prominently in the title of Article 13 as well as in four of the eight sentences of the article itself. The article is permeated with a focus on love: love for other believers, love p. 21 for enemies, refusing violence because of the gospel of love, and actively demonstrating Christ’s love. Article 13 uses love toward other believers and one’s enemies in ways consistent with these New Testament writers, even if it does not provide a detailed definition of that love.

Nonresistance

Bible Terms. The word “nonresistance” does not show up anywhere in the Bible, but it is clearly based on Jesus’ challenging words in Matthew 5:39: “But I say to you, do not resist [mē antistēnai] an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.” While “not resisting” sounds passive and nonactive in English, Barbara Reid argues that the Greek word antistēnai “almost always carries the connotation of ‘resist violently’ or ‘to use armed resistance in military encounters.’ ” 20 Because of the implications of the Greek word, N. T. Wright translates this verse as “don’t use violence to resist evil!” 21

It is common for scholars to suggest that the three actions Jesus then describes (viz., turn the other cheek; hand over your coat; go the second mile) are not advocating for passive nonaction but for an alternative pathway “that actively confronts the injustice with a positive and provocative act that short-circuits the cycle of violence and begins a different cycle, carrying with it the expectation that it will be reciprocated.” 22 Ronald Sider notes that if Jesus equates “not resisting” evil people with doing nothing,

then Jesus again and again contradicts his own teaching. Jesus unleashes a blistering attack on the Pharisees, denouncing them as blind guides, fools, hypocrites, and snakes (Matt. 23:13-33). He urges his followers to confront members of the church who sin (18:15-17). His cleansing of the temple when he overturns the tables of money changers and drives out the animals, is anything but passive (Matt. 21:12-17; Mark 11:15-19; Luke 19:45-48; John 2:13-25). And at his trial, when a soldier slaps him on the cheek, he protests rather than turn the other cheek (John 18:22-23). 23

It seems clear that the English word nonresistance does have connotations of doing nothing and, therefore, it misses much of the active nuance of the Greek phrase mē antistēnai.

Nonresistance in Article 13. The word nonresistance figures prominently in the title of Article 13, but since the word is never mentioned again in the article, we are left wondering about how the word should be defined. As noted, the word nonresistance in English implies doing nothing and being passive in the face of people bent on doing evil to others. It is noticeable p. 22 that the USMB Conference replaced the word nonresistance in its title with the active words “Peacemaking and Reconciliation.”

Peace

Bible Terms. The words often translated peace in the Bible (šalom [Heb.], eirēnē [Gr.]) cannot be limited to peace with God, interpersonal peace with others, personal internal peace, or peace with creation. Peace, in this biblical sense, begins with peace with God but is also multidimensional, robust, and life-producing. Willard Swartley observes,

Shalom is an iridescent word, with many levels of meaning in Hebrew Scripture. . . . Shalom occurs well over 200 times in the Hebrew Bible and has many dimensions of meaning: wholeness, completeness, well-being, peace, justice, salvation, and even prosperity. 24

Peace in its fullest biblical usage is a description of one’s relational status with God, others, creation, and oneself when these relationships are whole, healthy, life-giving, and free from the death-producing effects of sin. 25 While love is God’s primary character quality (e.g., 1 John 4:7-21), God’s love is always actively in pursuit of peace. Gideon can name an altar “The Lord [Yahweh] Is Peace [shalom]” (Judg 6:24) and biblical writers can refer to God as the “God of peace” (Rom 15:33; 16:20; Phil 4:9; 1 Thess 5:23; Heb 13:20).

Peace in its fullest sense is also at the heart of God’s cosmic and personal mission—and the ultimate outcome of salvation. The main Old Testament blessing from Numbers 6:24-26 was all about wishing peace over the community. Isaiah 52:7 declares “How beautiful on the mountains are the feet of those who bring good news, who proclaim peace [shalom].” God’s purpose is “to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross” (Col 1:20).

Jesus proclaimed the good news that God’s Kingdom “has come near” (Matt 3:2; 4:17), which means that God’s multidimensional peace in Christ is available to be experienced, embraced, nurtured, and celebrated. This is why the “gospel of the kingdom” (Matt 24:14; cf. 4:23; 9:35; Luke 4:43) can also be called the “gospel of peace” (Eph 6:15). God’s multidimensional peace has arrived in Jesus—his life, death, resurrection, and ascension accomplished both peace through the cosmic victory over Satan, sin, and death, and peace through the necessary atonement so that individual humans could participate in this peace. p. 23

While peace was a traditional greeting in the Jewish world, it seems to be infused with these additional multidimensional levels of meaning when Jesus tells the disciples to enter a house and wish “Peace to this house” (Luke 10:5), when Jesus greets the disciples post-resurrection with “Peace be with you” (Luke 24:36), and when eighteen New Testament letters begin with a salutation wishing peace to the recipients.

Peace in Article 13. Article 13 acknowledges some of the multi-dimensional meaning of the word peace when it highlights peace with God and others (see also Article 5: Salvation), and claims that believers “seek to be agents of reconciliation in all relationships.” While there is no specific mention of peace with oneself or peace with creation, these are addressed to some degree in Article 5: Salvation and in Article 15: Stewardship.

Peacemaking/Peacemaker

Bible Terms. The words for “peacemaking” and “peacemaker” show up twice in the New Testament. The most famous reference is, of course, in Matthew 5:9: “Blessed are the peacemakers [eirēnopoioi], for they will be called children of God.” While using a slightly different form, James also promises that the ones making peace (poiousin eirēnēn) and “who sow in peace [will] reap a harvest of righteousness” (3:18). Since biblical peace is multidimensional (with God, others, creation, and oneself), then Christian peacemaking must involve participating with Christ in ways that lead people to have peace with God, peace with each other, peace with creation, and peace with themselves.

Jerome’s Latin Vulgate version of Matthew 5:9 used the word pacifici to translate the Greek eirēnopoioi (peacemaker). This is the root for the English word pacifist, which technically means “peacemaker.” However, the English word has a wide range of connotation today: not only good relationships but possibly also being passive, anti-war, and anti-police, which go beyond the explicitly biblical understanding. 26 A 1957 General MB Conference Resolution said the following: “the doctrine of nonresistance is almost self-evident. But biblical nonresistance is not pacifism; it arises from an entirely different motive and the two are propagated by two entirely different groups of people.” 27

Biblical peacemaking involves reflective and intentional action. This may involve submitting to the violent threat of others, like Jesus did when he was arrested (Matt 26:52-56), or fleeing from the threat, like Jesus did in John 8:59 and 10:39, or proclaiming forgiveness rather than wrath, like Jesus did from the cross (Luke 23:34). But Jesus also verbally confronted p. 24 evil in John 8:2-58 and even used force but not violence in Matt 21:12. All of these actions were part of Jesus’ repertoire of peacemaking. 28

Biblical peacemaking can also involve “preventative peacemaking,” 29 where one embraces actions that lessen the likelihood of destructive disputes existing and/or escalating (Matt 5:21-22; 7:1; Rom 14:19; 2 Cor 13:11; Eph 4:3). Also, there is “restorative peacemaking,” seeking to restore some level of peace and reconciliation in situations where hostility, vengeance, and violence already exist (Matt 5:23-26; 18:15-20).

Paul says in Romans 12:18, “If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone.” Paul’s words also assume that living at peace may not always be possible since interpersonal peace is dependent on more than one individual being committed to living at peace. Jesus also provides a limitation on the fullness of interpersonal peace when he says these shocking words to his twelve disciples:

Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn “a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.” Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. (Matt 10:34-37)

The call to discipleship is about living out God’s peace, but this new allegiance is also a separator between committed disciples of Jesus and others (even close family members) who can be openly hostile to any such new allegiance. Being a peacemaker in all situations requires truth, conviction, and integrity. Being a peacemaker in all situations cannot be an excuse for the compromise of one’s spiritual allegiance to achieve a temporary interpersonal calm.

Peacemaking/Peacemaker in Article 13. While the first section of Article 13 does state that “Christ reconciles people to Himself,” the “Christian Peacemaking” section is less clear. Its opening sentence declares that believers “seek to be agents of reconciliation in all relationships, to practice love of enemies as taught by Christ,” and “to be peacemakers in all situations” but does not indicate whether this involves multidimensional peacemaking (namely, reconciliation to God, others, creation, and oneself) or is only about facilitating interpersonal peace. The sentences that immediately follow describe violence, conscription, and war, which suggests that the focus of Christian peacemaking in Article 13 is primarily about interpersonal peace. p. 25

Reconcile/Reconciliation

Bible Terms. The biblical language of reconcile and reconciliation reflects both the action of peacemaking and the state of peace that results from that action. God is the ultimate reconciler or peacemaker who through Christ sought “to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross” (Col 1:20). In terms of humanity, God “reconciled us to himself through Christ” (2 Cor 5:18; cf. Rom 5:10; Eph 2:16; Col 1:22). This act of reconciliation also brought about interpersonal peace between formerly hostile individuals who now share reconciliation in and through Jesus (Eph 2:11-22), who has “destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility” (v. 14), has created “one new humanity out of the two” (v. 15), and has given this new humanity “access to the Father by one Spirit” (v. 18) and a new shared relational identity (fellow citizens, members of his household, v. 19).

The blessed peacemakers from Matthew 5:9 are called “children of God” presumably because they are reflecting God’s character and work of peacemaking. While God is the ultimate peacemaker by reconciling people to himself through the cross, disciples of Jesus can participate in that work by making disciples of all nations (Matt 28:19-20). Paul explains that the “ministry of reconciliation” and the “message of reconciliation” have been given to Christ’s ambassadors who have now been entrusted with this message for the world: “We implore you on Christ’s behalf: Be reconciled to God” (2 Cor 5:18-21).

In addition to reconciliation with God, there is ongoing interpersonal reconciliation work needed both inside and outside of the family of God (Matt 5:24; Luke 12:58; 1 Cor 7:11). Interpersonal reconciliation is a key component in the New Testament command to forgive (Matt 6:12-15; 18:21-35; Mark 11:25; Luke 17:3-4; 2 Cor 2:7; Col 3:13).

Reconcile/Reconciliation in Article 13. These words show up twice in Article 13, once describing how “God in Christ reconciles people to Himself and to one another,” and once expressing how believers “seek to be agents of reconciliation in all relationships.” Article 13 does imply that peacemaking requires witness, testimony, and gospel proclamation, as well as interpersonal reconciliation. Article 13 also makes clear that the church family is ground zero for this work of reconciliation and peacemaking since it must model a relational bond that “transcends all racial, social, and national barriers.” In this sense, peacemaking begins at home. p. 26

Violence

Bible Terms. This is one of the most challenging words since it is not a common biblical word and its English meaning is constantly evolving and expanding. The English word violence has traditionally been limited primarily to the physical realm (e.g., assault, murder, rape, suicide) where one uses power and force to exert one’s will on others (or even on oneself) that results in profound harm or even death to the recipient. However, more recently, the word violence has expanded to include almost any individual or collective harm-producing action or attitude. For many today, violence can be physical but also economic, political, structural, sexual, psychological, emotional, environmental, ontological, and/or governmental. 30

In addition, there is debate whether a violent action should be defined primarily by the subjective experience of the person who received the harm, or by the intention of the actor doing the harm, or by some agreed-upon standard that transcends both subjective experience and intention. If the focus is primarily on the subjective experience of the person receiving the harm, almost anything unwanted and harmful can be labeled as violence. If we accept this as definitive, it raises serious questions about Jesus’ own interactions with his adversaries. Did Jesus do emotional and/or psychological violence when he pronounced the seven woes on the teachers of the law and the Pharisees in Matthew 23 or woes to the rich in Luke 6? Did Jesus do economic violence when he drove out those who were buying and selling in the temple courts in Matthew 21? This is certainly the conclusion of Michel Desjardins who declares, “The New Testament, I am now convinced, advocates both peace and violence.” 31 If we focus solely on the subjective experience of recipients, then preaching, evangelism, and any action that resembles church discipline (even if done with profound grace) may well become defined as violent.

However, if the focus is solely on the intention of the actor, the significant damage done to the recipient could easily be ignored. The popular devotional, Our Daily Bread, has a military version with a column titled “What About When I Have to Shoot Someone?” Here intention is prioritized above all else:

When it comes to killing in war, in theory it is not for selfish gain, or out of anger or hate. It is out of self-defence for your country, government, family and friends. So killing in war is not murder, and it does not conflict with God’s command. . . . No Christian can be condemned for killing in war, and there is no need to feel guilt. 32 p. 27

Ronald Sider tries to balance actor intention with the damage experienced by the recipient:

Violence is any action against a neighbor where the intent is to harm the neighbor, including killing the neighbor. . . . The motive of the person causing harm is a crucial factor in determining whether the action that causes harm is moral coercion or immoral violence. As long as the intent is love and well-being for the persons involved and the action leaves all persons free to make different, better choices in the future, the coercive action is not violent. 33

However, here too we find that some external standard of harm is needed since a person with intent to harm a neighbor may lie to them or spread gossip about them, but these actions do not seem worthy of being elevated into the category of violence.

Biblical writers often describe events that we would certainly consider as violent, but they reserve the word “violence” (Heb. ḥamas; Gr. bia) 34 almost exclusively to describe evil and unjust acts by the unrighteous inside and outside the people of God (e.g., Gen 6:11; 11:5; 55:9; Isa 59:6; Ezek 8:17; 45:9). The only time when God is identified as the one doing violence (ḥamas) is in the poetry of Lamentations 2:6 in which the author, reflecting on the 587/586 BCE Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem (2 Kings 25), identifies God as the real force who has “violently taken away” (KJV) or “laid waste” (NIV) the temple. The word “violence” is not used to describe God’s actions of judgment against God’s enemies, or to describe Israel’s wars (e.g., the wars of conquest). While this may seem puzzling to us, David just after attacking and conquering Jerusalem (1 Chr 11:4-7) could exclaim that “my hands are free from violence” (1 Chr 12:17). The biblical word for “violence” is generally reserved for actions that are explicitly evil and unjust.

This also explains Paul’s language in Romans 13:1 of how God has “established” (NIV; NRSV “instituted”; KJV “ordained”) the governing authorities who “bear the sword” because they are “God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer” (v. 4). The “sword” here holds no “terror for those who do right” (Rom 13:3) but is “God’s servant for your good” (13:4). Paul does not use the language of “violence” to describe the government bearing the sword within the parameters that God has established. 35

Violence in Article 13. The word violence occurs once each in two of the eight sentences of the article but is never defined. It is, however, renounced “in its many different forms” as “contradictory to the new nature of the p. 28 Christian,” as “evil and inhumane,” and as “contrary to the gospel of love and peace.” Does this total renunciation of violence imply the condemnation of what we understand as divinely sanctioned violence in the Old and New Testaments? 36 Do these two sentences about violence also imply the condemnation of violence done at the hands of governmental agencies even within the parameters described in Romans 13? If so, this conclusion conflicts with Article 12: Society and State, which claims that “God has given governments authority to maintain law and order and to punish wrongdoers.” Also, if so, the forthcoming “Living the Confession (FAQs)” will need to include an explicit prohibition against MBs participating in governmental roles (e.g., police, corrections officers, border service officers) that could potentially require the use of violence.

Immediately following the two sentences condemning violence is this statement: “In times of national conscription or war, we believe we are called to give alternative service where possible.” The article concludes with this statement: “Alleviating suffering, reducing strife, and promoting justice are ways of demonstrating Christ’s love.” The 1975 MB confession explained that these are the purposes behind alternative service: “We believe . . . that Christians . . . perform alternative service to reduce strife, alleviate suffering and bear witness to the love of Christ.” The 1999 MB confession does not make that rationale explicit.

Article 13 Within the Larger Christian World

Article 13 represents a significant confessional hurdle for many Canadian MBs for the reasons noted above, specifically the significant ambiguity related to the definitions of nonresistance and violence, as well as Article 13’s total condemnation of violence. It is unclear how this strong condemnation of violence can be reconciled with divine violence in Scripture and with Paul’s positive words in Romans 13 about how God has given the “sword” to the governing authority for good purposes.

But Article 13 is also a confessional hurdle for many, especially those new to the MB family, because it represents a minority perspective within the larger Christian world, one not commonly promoted in Bible colleges, seminaries, or in online articles and podcasts. Four perspectives on how Christians should respond to violence will be described here with the intention of determining where Article 13 fits in this spectrum. For the sake of this categorization, the word violence will refer primarily to physical actions that produce significant bodily harm and possibly even death to the recipient. p. 29

First, we have the majority Christian perspective that could be called “Defensive Violence Is a Limited but Necessary Good.” This means that in the proper context and with the right objectives (such as, protecting the weak and vulnerable, restraining evil), personal self-defense as well as governmental defensive violence can be a limited but necessary good in our broken world for Christians and non-Christians alike. This means that Christians should support and even participate in policing, corrections, border services, and in the military when these objectives are clearly present. 37

The perceived positives of this approach are understood in light of common sense and historical experience observing how the pervasive nature and advancement of evil in our broken world only increase when it is not actively resisted. As a result, defensive violence is considered not evil and inhumane but as a necessary and even redemptive good since it maintains good order in the world and can protect individuals and communities from devastating evil. The drawbacks of this perspective include serious questions about how it is consistent with Jesus’ radical teachings and how disciples of Jesus using violence—even defensive violence—can be faithful witnesses to Jesus and his kingdom.

A second perspective could be called “Personal Nonviolence but Public Service.” In this perspective, disciples of Jesus embrace personal nonviolence in their everyday lives toward neighbors and even enemies. However, because Romans 13 speaks of how God has established governmental institutions for good (such as, policing, corrections, and border services), they are willing to take on the personal risks that are required in these institutions. They take up the “sword” only when acting on behalf of those whom God has put in place for advancing the overall good, protecting the weak and vulnerable, and restraining evil.

An obvious positive of this perspective is that others now witness disciples of Jesus taking on high-risk roles in public life that are perceived as a benefit to the larger community, and faithful Christians can be positive witnesses for honesty, integrity, compassion, and restraint. A drawback is that it is difficult to reconcile this approach with the direct teachings of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount.

The third perspective could be called “Personal Nonviolence in Every Sphere.” The assumption here is that no matter what, disciples of Jesus must live consistently with the model and instruction of Jesus who did “no violence” (Isa 53:9), blessed peacemakers (Matt 5:9), and commanded his disciples not to resist an evil person (5:39) but to love their enemies (5:44). p. 30 Accordingly, disciples of Jesus must refuse to participate in any vocational role that enables, contributes to, or requires violence:

Šalom cannot be established by violence, which is the weapon in the arsenal of death and all its friends. No matter how holy, noble, just, or ethical the cause may be, violence not only must not be embraced as a means to such ends, according to the witness of the New Testament, violence is metaphysically incapable of contributing to the work of God on earth. . . . Violence is antithetical to the identity and mission of Christians as they follow, obey, serve, and worship Jesus their Lord, the Prince of Peace. 38

The key positive of this approach is that it seems to fit well with both the teachings of Jesus and the nature of God’s kingdom. As Ronald Sider notes,

If Jesus is God incarnate; if Jesus was truly the expected Jewish Messiah; if Jesus taught his followers to love, not kill, their enemies; if Jesus’s messianic kingdom has begun in his life, death, and resurrection; if the church, in the power of the Holy Spirit, is called to live now the lifestyle of the already dawning kingdom modeled by Jesus; and if the crucified and risen Jesus is now Lord of all earthly kingdoms, then Christians today must refuse to kill their enemies. 39

A common critique of this perspective is that while it embraces a complete rejection of violence in one’s personal and public life, disciples of Jesus benefit personally and corporately from others taking on the high-risk roles of policing, corrections, border services, and military involvement—while they maintain a safe distance from those risks. A second critique is that it can lead to a passive rather than an active posture toward evil that fundamentally enables evil and increases the harm and exploitation of vulnerable individuals and populations.

The final perspective embraced by some is what could be called “Violence Is Unnecessary in Our World.” This perspective suggests that because all violence conflicts with God’s will for humanity, believers should actively oppose and advocate for the elimination of violence at the personal, community, national, and global levels. This means that disciples of Jesus should pursue social, economic, political, and educational reforms, believing that the underlying causes of violence (injustice, economic disparity, etc.) can be significantly reduced or even eliminated. As a result, disciples of Jesus should oppose institutions that utilize violence or the p. 31 threat of violence. The end goal is for a global humanity that together embraces reconciliation and nonviolence together.

Positively, this option recognizes that violence is an intruder in God’s world that will eventually be eliminated in the new creation (cf. Isa 2:4; Mic 4:3). This perspective also lives out an active concern for peacemaking and justice in the present world. In terms of drawbacks, this perspective may be seen as lacking an awareness of the reality of evil in the world, failing to accept the role God has given to governments, being overly optimistic about the coming of God’s kingdom fully into the present world before Jesus returns, and leaning toward a personal and social transformation without the need for personal salvation and discipleship in Jesus.

It is difficult to discern how many Canadian MBs embrace each of these four options, but Article 13 in its current version is closest to the third option, since it does not seem to leave space for violence in the personal or public life of a disciple of Jesus or even for violence utilized by government institutions for the public good.

Conclusion

This article has briefly explored some elements in the historical development of Article 13: Love and Nonresistance (1999), the way key words are used there in comparison to the biblical writers, and the relationship of Article 13 to the larger Christian community in terms of its perspective on the appropriate use or nonuse of violence by disciples of Jesus.

In light of widespread confusion related to the contents of Article 13 and about whether Article 13 should be considered “normative” and “prescriptive” for our MB family, it seems that we will either have to embrace the present article and resolve these challenging questions, or we will need to consider a revision to Article 13 that resolves the ambiguities in ways that our community can agree more clearly represent faithfulness to the Scriptures. Either path will be challenging, but either path will undoubtedly be an improvement over our present situation.

Notes

  1. See https://usmb.org/confession-of-faith-4/.
  2. Confession of Faith of the Canadian Conference of Mennonite Brethren Churches: 2025 Full Resource Edition (Winnipeg: Kindred, 2025), xiii. The current p. 32 (1999) Canadian MB confession may also be found here: https://www.mennonitebrethren.ca/the-mb-confession-of-faith-full-text/#elementor-toc__heading-anchor-12.
  3. Howard John Loewen, One Lord, One Church, One Hope, and One God: Mennonite Confessions of Faith in North America (Elkhart, IN: Institute of Mennonite Studies, 1985), 172.
  4. Ted Regehr, Mennonites in Canada: 1939–1970 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1996), 56.
  5. For an effort to differentiate Canadian Mennonite Brethren from other Canadian Mennonites as well as from American Mennonite Brethren, see Abe Dueck, “North American Mennonite Brethren and Issues of War, Peace and Nonresistance,” in Bridging Troubled Waters: The Mennonite Brethren at Mid-Twentieth Century, ed. Paul Toews (Winnipeg, MB: Kindred, 1995), 3-17.
  6. “Mennonite Brethren Statements on War and Peace in North America,” Appendix II in The Power of the Lamb, ed. John E. Toews and Gordon Nickel (Winnipeg, MB: Kindred, 1986), 148.
  7. Toews and Nickel, 155.
  8. 1960 Yearbook of the Fiftieth Canadian Conference of the Mennonite Brethren Church of North America (Winnipeg, MB: Christian, 1960), 212.
  9. 1969 Yearbook of the Fifty-ninth Canadian Conference of the Mennonite Brethren Church of North America (Winnipeg, MB: Christian, 1969), 47.
  10. Loewen, 178.
  11. Toews and Nickel, 3.
  12. The 1999 Article 13 changed inhuman to inhumane.
  13. 2016 CCMBC General Operating Bylaws, Article 11:2: 2, https://na.mennonitebrethren.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/CCMBC-General-Operating-Bylaws-Approved-July-2016.pdf.
  14. 2021 CCMBC GOB, Article 12:3, https://www.mennonitebrethren.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/2021-06-12-CCMBC-GOB-FINAL.pdf.
  15. 2021 CCMBC GOB, Article 12:3.
  16. Confession of Faith, xiii.
  17. Others have also noted the significance of and confusion related to defining key words in Article 13. See Jonathan Janzen, “Passing on Peace? Canadian Mennonite Brethren and Peacemaking,” in Renewing Identity and Mission, ed. A. Dueck, B. Guenther, and D. Heidebrecht (Winnipeg, MB: Kindred, 2011), 117–38.
  18. This paper is unable to delve into the many complexities around the meaning of the biblical terms, especially in the relationship between Old Testament Hebrew words and any such “equivalents” in the New Testament. For a pertinent discussion related to ḥesed, see Karen Nelson, Ḥesed and the p. 33 New Testament: An Intertextual Categorization Study (University Park, PA: Eisenbrauns, 2023).
  19. Bible quotations throughout are from the New International Version.
  20. Barbara Reid, “Matthew’s Nonviolent Jesus and Violent Parables,” (Center for Christian Ethics at Baylor University, 2006), 29, https://ifl.web.baylor.edu/sites/g/files/ecbvkj771/files/2023-02/parablesarticlereid.pdf.
  21. N. T. Wright, Matthew for Everyone: Part 1 (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2004), 49.
  22. Reid, 29.
  23. Ronald J. Sider, If Jesus Is Lord: Loving Our Enemies in an Age of Violence (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2019), 35.
  24. Willard M. Swartley, Covenant of Peace: The Missing Peace in New Testament Theology and Ethics (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2006), 27, 28.
  25. For more on the nature of shalom in the Bible, see Ken Esau, “Hearing and Living the Shalom Kingdom Melody: A Mennonite Brethren Discipleship Hermeneutic,” Direction 50 (Spring 2021): 71–84. See also Perry B. Yoder, Shalom: The Bible’s Word for Salvation, Justice, and Peace (Newton, KS: Faith & Life, 1987).
  26. Scot McKnight tries to redeem the word pacifism with the following explanation of its biblical connections: “Pacifism isn’t quietism or withdrawal or inactivity, and it isn’t simple submission. Pacifism’s root is connected to the peacemaking beatitude, rooted in love and expressed when the follower of Jesus actively seeks peace. . . . Pacifism is nonviolent resistance, not nonresistance” (Sermon on the Mount [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 2013], 131).
  27. Toews and Nickel, 159.
  28. These options are described more fully in an unpublished draft of Article 13: Explanatory Notes (2025), https://www.mennonitebrethren.ca/mb-confession-of-faith/
  29. Preventative peacemaking as a concept is indebted to the work of Glen Harold Stassen whose books on “Just Peacemaking” focus on practices that lessen the likelihood of war. See especially Glen Stassen, ed., Just Peacemaking: Ten Practices for Abolishing War (New York: Pilgrim, 1998).
  30. See Warren C. Brown and Rory Cox, “Violence and Order Past and Present,” Global Intellectual History 10:3 (2025): 165–80, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/epdf/10.1080/23801883.2023.2201949?needAccess=true.
  31. Michel Desjardins, Peace, Violence and the New Testament (T&T Clark, 1997), 121.
  32. Our Daily Bread: Military, “What About When I Have to Shoot Someone?” https://military.odb.org/explore-christianity/what-about-when-i-have-to-shoot-someone/.
  33. Sider, 3, 4. p. 34
  34. While šod is sometimes translated as “violence,” it is more appropriately translated as the “destruction” that can accompany violence (cf. Jer 6:7; 20:8; Amos 3:10; Hab 1:3).
  35. This does not mean, of course, that the New Testament writers had unequivocally positive attitudes toward secular governments. Revelation 13 provides a much more critical evaluation of the state implying that there are times when it is empowered by satanic forces in direct conflict with God’s kingdom and God’s people.
  36. For my critique of one approach to resolving divine violence, see Ken Esau, “Disturbing Scholarly Behavior: Seibert’s Solution to the Old Testament God,” Direction 40 (Fall 2011), 168–78. For other ways of reconciling these questions, see Matthew Lynch, Flood and Fury: Old Testament Violence and the Shalom of God (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2023), and Helen Paynter, Blessed are the Peacemakers: A Biblical Theology of Human Violence (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 2023).
  37. For reflections on the complex challenges of the application of this approach to war itself, see “The Triumph of Just War Theory (and the Dangers of Success),” Social Research: An International Quarterly 91:1 (Spring 2024): 1–20, https://muse.jhu.edu/article/923109.
  38. Jesse P. Nickel, A Revolutionary Jesus: Violence and Peacemaking in the Kingdom of God (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2024), 184–85.
  39. Sider, 215.
Ken Esau (MDiv, ThM) is a faculty emeritus from Columbia Bible College and is presently the National Faith and Life Director for the Canadian Conference of MB Churches. This essay is based on a similar presentation at Equip 2025 in Winnipeg, Manitoba, October 2025.

Previous