Wilhelm Ewert responds to Jakob Mannhardt, 1872

Response to the Essay in Issues No. 6, 7, 8, and 9 in the 1872 Volume of the Mennonite Newspaper: “Can and May We as Mennonites Satisfy the State’s Call to Serve in the Military?”[1]

Elder Wilhelm Ewert, Obernessau

The author of this essay [Jakob Mannhardt][2] named in the title was so open-minded in the conclusion as to call for other brothers to address this important issue. A good number of issues of the Mennonite Newspaper [Mennonitische Blätter] have appeared since then and until now, no one has written anything either in favor or opposition of this essay. Thus, it almost appears as if all Mennonites agreed with the author’s view, but this is not at all in fact the case.

Most Mennonites have indeed accepted the law regulating the draft, but only because they understand it to preclude the shedding of blood and the killing of our neighbors. Yet there is also a small group who are convinced, based on the clear words of the Lord, that participating in war is not compatible with following the mild and humble Savior who came to save souls, not to ruin them. Christ and Belial do not mix, and therefore even the milder form of military service granted us by the king is not acceptable, because these soldiers must swear a military oath and are required to carry military weapons. This tiny band are prepared to abandon everything and suffer anything rather than abandon the footsteps of their Savior. I would much prefer to leave the defense of this understanding of our faith to a more capable pen, and since the dear Elder G[erhard] Penner had announced a forthcoming response when this essay first appeared, that convinced me to resist the longing in my heart to respond and rather to be quiet. Now that is no longer possible, because the spirit of the Lord is chastising me without ceasing for this reticence.

If I therefore feel convicted to justify Christian non-resistance, it is not for the sake of so-called Christendom, and especially not for the so-called Mennonite community that was protected by the Charter of Privileges[3] while for the most part being conformed to the world and only obeying the Word of the Lord if it did not result in the loss of earthly possessions, shame, denigration, or suffering. Rather I address my words only to those who can interpret for themselves in truth the words in Colossians 3:3, “For you died, and your life is now hidden with Christ in God,” who do not think it is empty talk to confess that they joined the community of believers and asked for baptism because they felt compelled to separate themselves from worldly and sinful desires. I write for those who strive to obey their Lord, Savior, and Redeemer for their salvation and who consider themselves to be members of the holy Body of Christ. They feel duty bound to proclaim the virtues of the One who called them from darkness into light and believe that if a Christian congregation has abandoned the principle of being a congregation of saints it should also cease to call itself a Christian congregation. The author in question admitted that this high ideal rooted in the spirit and letter of scripture was the goal of the forefathers of our confession. They, however, did not see it as some ideal but rather as a basic principle of Christianity, because it has such a strong basis in the Word of the Lord and his apostles.

The fact that our congregations are no longer what they should be is something that I can heartily agree about with the author. I furthermore believe that this condition was inevitable since our co-religionists, tied to a Charter of Privilege, reduced the respect of the cross to a concern about a certain amount of property or a certain number of members so as to remain in compliance. They therefore put the light of true discipleship to Christ under a bushel and ceased to attempt to win souls for the kingdom of peace and the gospel of peace of Lord Jesus. Thus, our congregations were not built from living stones gathered from all nations to be a spiritual house and a holy priesthood, but rather their continuity depended only on the physical descendants of Mennonite parents. What is born of the flesh is flesh and since physical birth typically was all that was needed to be qualified for baptism and membership in our congregations, the dominate spirit in them is a worldly one. Does the fact that we are not what we should be give us the right, contrary to holy scripture, to say that such a congregation is impossible or to let this principle go? Should we not rather take the warning in Revelation 2:5 to heart, “Consider how far you have fallen! Repent and do the things you did at first. If you do not repent, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place.” Indeed, truly, our community has ceased to be a lampstand and become satisfied with external ceremonies without placing the main priority on a righteous way of life so that we are ripe for the judgment cited and risk being thrown away as salt that has lost its saltiness.

As bleak as our condition seems, the Lord will know how to fulfill His words that the gates of Hell shall not prevail against His congregation. If the congregations in provincial Prussia are facing the judgement that comes to those who fall away, in other places there is a new dawning. As the Mennonite Congregational Newspaper [Gemeindeblatt der Mennoniten] in Baden reported recently, new congregations are forming in areas and among peoples where it would have never been expected according to traditional Mennonite, or more accurately, to biblical and apostolic principles.[4]

As I noted, I am only addressing those who feel the Lord’s words in John 17:14 apply to them: “I have given them your word and the world has hated them, for they are not of the world any more than I am of the world.” Likewise, for those who confess with Paul in Philippians 3:20, “But our citizenship is in heaven.” If these, because they feel obligated to suffer and strive for the kingdom of heaven, are held by the editor to be unreasoning and behaving in a way unworthy of a Christian, they themselves instead think about these judgements of them the way Jesus thought of those who accused him of acting like a Samaritan and of being possessed by the devil.

As I began to read the start of the continuation in issue seven, I was pleased to read that the author granted the merit of the views of our ancestors and the holy scripture, but then, oh my, how the clear Word of God was forced to bow before his polemic. Because our ancestors, and those of us called orthodox Mennonites, were not everything we should be, that seemed to him to be proof enough that we should never be allowed to be what we should be. Every simple believer should no longer have any doubt about the biblical and confessional basis of non-resistant Christianity after reading the Bible verses and Menno’s quotes the author provided (and enough similar material would be available to fill an entire year’s worth of the Mennonite Newspaper). In my opinion, instead of having a troubled conscience, which the author is trying to put to sleep, over the shift from the belief of our forefathers, we should instead be terrified to see how far we have fallen and begin to repent and to practice the first, basic steps again. Over against all these unambiguous Bible verses that oppose the essence of war like day versus night, the troubled mind is supposed to be comforted by Paul’s words in Romans 13 or by the completely irrationally cited John 15:13, “Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends,” as affirming military service.

This line of argumentation makes me wonder about the theology used here or about the author’s opinion concerning the intelligence of the readers. Are the French and other supposed enemies not also our brothers? Were they not also created by God and redeemed by the precious blood of Christ? Is waging war on them, even if they have been deceived into hating us, the brotherly, universal love that Christ commanded? By this logic, the Lord Jesus would have loved his own much better if he had allowed his heavenly Father to send those twelve legions of angels to protect his permanently persecuted and oppressed people from martyrdom by the power of his mighty arm. That would have been much better than His remaining silent like a lamb being led to the slaughter in order to fulfill God’s wonderful will as an example of patience and obedience to God’s will and the glorious results that followed.

If it had been God’s will that Christ were called to rule from earthly thrones, and to found and protected terrestrial kingdoms, he would have certainly made special exemptions to the laws and rules for rulers and warriors. He would have known that a nation and a whole people, which will contain both good and evil until the time of harvest, could not be ruled by the gospel, whose power is love itself, nor by God’s law, which fear of the Lord lends obedience to, but rather only by the law that compels obedience by the sword of state authority. But the followers of Christ according to the whole New Testament have no other power than that granted them in Matthew 18:15-22.

Since not even one unconverted person, much less a whole tribe, can be ruled in this way, we can assume that our Savior never thought that a Christian state ruled by one of his followers would ever exist. The only way to overthrow a throne is by prayer. Why would anyone who has heard Matthew 20:25-28 and Luke 22:25-26 even want to rule? On what basis does the author claim all the biblical teachings of our forefathers in the faith regarding suffering Christianity only apply in truth to the Christian as a member of the Kingdom of Christ that is not of this world, who therefore in their hearts struggle against all selfishness, anger, revenge, and envy in order to overcome evil with good but when this same Christian has the sword thrust in their hands by the state they are in some circumstances released from the commandments to practice love and humility? Where are these exceptions to the rules documented for Christians who are soldiers, unleashed from the commands of Christ and several of the Ten Commandments, which cannot be kept while serving in the military? In his heart he should have the love of Christ and as a citizen of an earthly state he should kill with the sword! I do not know how such a contradiction can be contained in a human heart, for me it would not be possible.

The editor’s interpretation of Christ’s teaching “Put your sword back in its sheath” seems biased to me. The reason Christ told his disciples to buy two swords was simply to fulfill scripture, “He was numbered with the transgressors.” [Luke 22:37] It also provided an unforgettable lesson to his disciples how they should react in the face of even the gravest injustice. Whoever wants to use the sword to defend his interests, like Peter did, stands under the law of the sword, that punishes physical life. The resulting fear of death makes it possible for people of this world to rule effectively. Such a person is not free of the fear of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. If such people out of a lack of trust in God’s omnipotence and wisdom try to protect themselves with the sword and die in this state of faithlessness, they are dead. In contrast, if one who trusts in Christ’s promises in God loses his life to a villainous hand, he is not dead, for he has passed over from death to life, as Christ said, “The one who believes in me will live, even though they die.” [John 11:25] A Christian is ruled by the law of freedom and the gospel, so that Christ impels him to all the good works and in this he has faith in all, hope in all, and suffers all for he knows that he stands under God’s omnipotent protection. Against God’s will not one hair can fall from his head. All things will work together for the good of those who love him, even including the loss of home and life.

In the same measure that living by the gospel makes the use of the sword superfluous, likewise war will decrease in scope and ferocity, becoming completely unnecessary, when the laws of Christ apply everywhere. That one needs a government for as long as there is sin is certainly the will of God. We do not doubt God uses such to implement his judgment and will since if storm, hail, fire, and flood, and even the devil must serve to fulfill God’s will, why not governments as well? If they see it as their duty to protect the pious, we accept that with gratitude just as with every other merciful gift of God. I cannot, however, find any instruction in the New Testament that we need to form and then support such governments with the sword. There we find only that we should pray always to God for them and give taxes where taxes are due and honor where honor is due. There will never be a lack of those who wish to rule, since the pride inherited by everyone from Adam includes the desire to rule. Since I do not want to bend the clear word of the Lord, I find instead that the military service demanded of us stands in contradiction to the example and word of the Lord and we can therefore rightly say “One must obey God more than people.” Those who do good have no reason to fear the state. If someone argues that under the categories of authority in I Peter 2:13-14, those who are colonels and captains are also listed, consulting a good commentary will show that the correct translations should be “whether to the emperor, as the supreme authority, or to the governors, who are sent by him.”[5]

If anyone should want to refuse to serve in the military not as a matter of conscience based on knowledge won from the word of God, but as a matter of lazy comfort as the author thinks is our case, here the charge of hypocrisy is justly made. Such a person has the duty to support the state in exchange for the protection that he demands. The so-called work of the Good Samaritan as a medic, that this essay so strongly insisted was our duty, is nonetheless military service as it requires an oath accepting military regulations which include the requirement to carry weapons. Accepting such service admits that war is a necessary evil before which our witness to the unchristian nature of war must fall silent.

Taking up the claims of the editor about politics and the consequences of the last French war would require a lengthy detour and simply reading what I have write here will make it clear to everyone how I and those who agree with me think about this subject.

Should those readers of this newspaper who have accepted military service seek to comfort their conscience with the argument that few of the brothers in Russia are emigrating to avoid military service there, they are reminded that running with the masses in matters of the Kingdom of God is not recommended, since the words of Christ note that only the “few” are on the path that leads to life. Nonetheless we know that the number of those who hold fast to the words to endure in patience is not so small. Already 500 families of the brothers in the southern colonies have decided to emigrate to America and have already send three delegates to investigate.[6] Three additional ones from there and one[7] from our congregations will be leaving to join them soon, to negotiate with the respective governments there about the conditions of settlement. Furthermore, the number of defenseless Christians in the world is growing, not shrinking. Not only do our numerous congregations in America live by this fundamental article of faith, but so do other religious societies who agree with this principle, who number many hundreds of thousands of members in the world.

Although I wish the editor much success in other aspects of his newspaper, I hope that the aim of the article under review fails in its effort to provide doubting minds with false comfort. I hope rather that many souls either to the right or to the left who are not yet clear on this issue may develop increasing pangs of conscience so that they call on the Lord for light until He gives them a pure heart and a clear mind to do His will. How dreadful will it be for all those deceived to take part without thought in the heroic deeds praised by the world when they will hear for all eternity the cries in hell of those who they perhaps with their bullets, swords, or bayonets tore away prematurely from a time of grace when they could have still repented and been saved. O, if the Lord prizes a soul more than the whole world, what a pitiable exchange it would be to gain medals, rights of incorporation, legal equality with other denominations, security of one’s property, and the glory of the fatherland and nation by becoming partners in a work that sends hundreds of thousands of souls into eternity at the very moment they are most filled with hatred and bitterness.[8] Is this the task we should help with instead of taking up our walking stick to go where we can be free from such tasks of despair and where we will actually be welcomed?

O, what if when the Lord would come again – the one we are to prepare ourselves for as a pure bride on her wedding day, for the wedding of the lamb, we His bride who is be ready for the new heaven and the new earth that will be revealed, where justice will dwell, where wars will cease, and swords transformed into plowshares – what if on that day He would come and we are at war, or training for war or even justifying war? Or even worse, as in the time when the ten kings give their power to the beast and fight against the lamb, Rev. 17:14, we appear as obedient subjects of the king and are among those stamped with the sign of the beast? How would we then regret that we did not pay heed to the warning in Rev. 3:11, “I am coming soon. Hold on to what you have, so that no one will take your crown.”

I ask the editor not to consider my frank discussion as aimed at him in a hostile manner. I simply had the issues in mind and not the person, otherwise I would have been much more reticent to say anything, as the editor has always been nothing but kind to me. I would welcome any correction he has to offer me from the word of God. Through such an exchange perhaps some additional souls could be won for non-resistance.

I greet all with the word of the risen Lord, “Peace to all who are in Christ Jesus.” H. [W.] Ewert[9]

NOTES

[1] Originally published in Mennonitische Blätter, June 1873, vol. 20, no. 5, 36-39. Reprinted (also in German) in Mennonite Quarterly Review, October 1937, vol. 11, no. 4, 284-90. Translated 2024 by Mark Jantzen.

[2] Pastor of the Danzig Mennonite Church from 1836 to his death in 1885, founding editor of the Mennonitische Blätter in 1854, serving in that position until 1874; Christian Neff, “Mannhardt, Jakob (1801-1885),” Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia Online, 1957, https://gameo.org/index.php?title=Mannhardt,_Jakob_(1801-1885)&oldid=89297 Mannhardt’s opening paragraph noted that only two congregations in West Prussia still opposed military service in any form, Gerhard Penner’s Heubuden congregation and Ewert’s Obernessau congregation.

[3] Since 1780 Mennonites along the Vistula River had a Charter of Privileges from the kings of Prussia that allowed them religious tolerance and freedom of worship. In exchange, they had to pay a special tax to avoid military service. By 1789, in a Mennonite Edict, additional church taxes, a ban on marriages to non-Mennonites, and on buying real estate from non-Mennonites were added to the list of requirements Mennonites had to fulfill in order to remain in Prussia and be exempted from military service.

[4] The Gemeindeblatt der Mennoniten was start in 1870 by Ulrich Hege of Reihen in Baden for the Mennonites in the three southern German states not included in the North German Confederation of 1867. It was theologically and politically more conservative than the Mennonitische Blätter. Ewert may have been commenting here on reports in the Gemeindeblatt of a new Nazarene church in Hungary, known as the Apostolic Christian Church in the United States, that practiced biblical nonresistance, 1, no. 12 (Dec. 1870), 50, and an article noting 120,000 nonresistant Mennonites in the United States and Canada, 3, no. 6, (June 1872), 41-42. In addition, Ewert himself wrote two articles for the Gemeindeblatt on conditions in Prussia and emigration efforts, “Aus Preussen. Kurzer Bericht eine Besuchsreise in den Gemeinden in Rußland im Jahre 1870,” 2, no. 2 (Feb. 1871), 6-8, “Eine Stimme aus Preußen,” 3, no. 4 (April 1872), 24-25.

[5] An older version of the German-language Luther Bible at this point reads, “Be subject to all earthy government for the sake of the Lord, whether king as the ruler, or the captains, who are sent by him for vengeance on evildoers and for praise of the pious.” The archaic German formulation makes “ruler” (Obersten) read like “colonel” and was taken by some to mean that military officers had to be obeyed like the king.

[6] The Gemeindeblatt der Mennoniten carried coverage on the efforts of Mennonites in the Russian Empire to migrate, 2, no. 3 (March 1872), 19-20, 3, no. 8 (August 1872), 61-62.

[7] Ewert referred here to himself. He travelled around North American from May 29 to Aug. 21, 1873; Hans Werner, “‘Something…we had not seen nor heard of’: The 1873 Mennonite Delegation to Find Land in ‘America,’” Perservings 34 (2014), 11-20, https://www.plettfoundation.org/preservings/archive/34/

[8] Some Mennonites won the Iron Cross military service medal in the Franco-Prussian War of 1870. In 1878 Jakob Mannhardt, five years after this article was written, was awarded the Royal Crown Order fourth class without the number 50 by the government on his golden ordination jubilee. The award was explicitly for helping convince Mennonites to accept some form of military service. The Mennonite congregation in Danzig had applied for the Red Eagle Order with the number 50, which is what state Protestant church pastors were awarded on the 50th anniversary of their ordinations. But the government required non-state church pastors to receive lower awards. After Mennonites accepted military service, a Mennonite Law in 1874 restored their civil rights, allowing mixed marriages and real estate purchases while cancelling most extra taxes.

[9] The H. in the original appears to be a typo, there is no doubt about Wilhelm Ewert’s authorship of this piece.