Niebuhrian Transformation: Anabaptists in the Wake of WWII

http://www.christianpost.com/news/nm-mennonite-church-becomes-first-in-denomination-to-appoint-openly-lesbian-head-pastor-200073/

What can we say about modern Mennonites? They have lost their way. Despite what differences I might have with them I could say that Anabaptist theology used to focus on Bible.

Reinhold Niebuhr's false dilemmas in the wake of World War II spurred some pacifist and separatist factions to engage in social activism and transformation. His brother Richard Niebuhr's fallacious and reductionist framing of Christ and Culture continues to mislead many by driving them to ask and answer the wrong questions.*

Rightly identifying with the weak, the now mainstreamed Mennonites forgot that the antithesis is vis-à-vis the world as a whole... not just in contrast to those wielding power. Just because some Christians aren't engaged in social activism and political causes does not mean they are in some kind of monastic retreat.

The Mennonites in particular seemed subject to doctrinal and cultural naiveté. Throwing themselves toward their new goals they failed to reflect properly on the lessons of World War II, how it came about, how its history has been written and how Christians responded to it. They also needed to revisit Scripture but the quest for relevance removed it from the place of authority. Had they done these things, they would have realised that both of the Niebuhr arguments are rooted in worldly and non-Scriptural assumptions. Neither Niebuhr was a Christian (in Biblical terms) and thus their arguments regarding the mission of the Church and the nature of the Kingdom are rendered moot.

And now for many of them it's too late. Had they rightly weighed these questions, they might have realised that while their conservative cousins have not quite got it right, they are not entirely wrong either.

While there is a Biblical case for Separatism, the conservative Mennonites (in part) demonstrate at least one sense in which it can go wrong or take a bad turn. Too much ignorance and naiveté regarding the world runs the risk of subjecting the people of God to manipulation. Fundamentalists have also fallen prey to this. Basking in their ignorance they flourish in their sub-culture. But when presented with serious challenges, crises or strong adversity, they had better not only have some answers but be able to explain what's happening and why. I think they have failed in this.

The doctrinal answers should be enough but practically speaking it's helpful for Church leaders to be able to explain to their people the context in which they live. If they fail, their congregations are flying blind and subject to the world's machinations and its false wisdom.

Additionally the average Christian needs to learn how to think and work through the labyrinth of daily life, raising kids and wrestling with the world. Leaving it in the hands of leaders who give dictates rather than teach wisdom, who act as lords rather than examples, who treat their flock as milk-drinking babes instead of teaching them to be adults and eat solid food... leaves the sheep in a weakened state and easy prey.

Such was the case (it would seem) with a significant portion of the Mennonite community in the wake of World War II and the new era's profound and existential challenges to cultural values and norms.

These new Mennonites decided that isolation (as they perceived it) was wrong, antithesis was no longer something intrinsic to this age or an absolute as defined and delineated by the Kingdom. But instead they embraced antithesis as a calling for engagement and social transformation. Because they came from a heritage that rejected many of the Right-wing values that dominate the American system and its political spectrum they found themselves identifying with the Leftist opposition. Indeed there were (and are) some overlap in values. Anti-racism, anti-war, anti-militarism and a great sense of social equity as opposed to hubris based individualism were easy for them to embrace.

But they made the quest the absolute, the means became the end and they quickly moved away from Scripture. It's a sad story. Men and women who meant well drank deep from poisoned wells and though in some respects they're not as heinous as the Christian Right and its validation of self-worship, theft and murder, these misguided mongrel Anabaptists have embraced other forms of evil.

Desiring to fight the evil abuses of power, they blinded themselves to  what power is and the dangers it presents in light of man's sinful nature. Moving away from Scripture and placing other ideas on par with it they were snared by the evil one and now ironically serve him. They're in the same boat as the Christian Right and American Evangelicalism which harbour values they have so long opposed.

Had they spent more time reflecting on the teaching of Scripture and the saga of human history they might have realised that the wicked, even those disenfranchised and out of power will quickly turn their underdog status into tyranny when given the chance. History has demonstrated this on numerous occasions. We're even seeing it today.

Identifying with the weak became confused with condoning sin. Sodomites were treated in an ugly fashion by society. That was rightly decried but as Christians that only goes so far. Their sins cannot be justified or condoned. We don't want to see human beings denigrated or people treated as something less than a person but that does not mean we accept their behaviour, let alone celebrate it. The behaviour itself is denigrating and makes mockery and shipwreck of the image of God. It is man becoming something less than human, becoming like the idol-beasts their sin nature drives them to worship. Debasing humanity is a form of sacrilege our adversary (seemingly) loves to promote and instigate.

A peace ethic once politicised quickly loses its way. You cannot serve peace and power. Power is always rooted in the threat of violence (in some form) and when joined with an ethic of peace... power will always win the day. Gandhi is lionised but he died and never wielded political power. India followed a different road, one that ultimately led to Indira Gandhi and to Narendra Modi. They honour Gandhi but rejected his ideas.

Martin Luther King stood for peace in a sense but in another sense he like Gandhi engaged in political judo and instead sought to use the violence of the state against itself. He and his successors have had no problem with employing the violence of the state to force and coerce equality. This in no way justifies the racist corruption of those who opposed him and continue to do so. Compared to the violence of the Black Panthers and that of American law enforcement and certainly men like J Edgar Hoover, King does appear to be admirable. But as a Christian I cannot fully embrace the motives or methods of either of these men. On one level I can respect them but their paths and methods are incompatible with the New Testament.

The liberal Mennonite orders which arose in the wake of World War II demonstrate how even rightly motivated principles can become corrupt and even wicked. They lost their way and divorced their ideals from Scripture and now... tragedy and apostasy.

It is heartbreaking and sickening. A smiling beautiful face hides a corrupt and satanic heart. One who would 'shepherd' the flock and lead people to Christ is instead an agent of Antichrist.

And no marvel for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.

See also:

https://pilgrimunderground.blogspot.com/2017/05/comey-and-conservative-theological.html

*I decided to update and edit my Niebuhr comments. I was specifically speaking of Richard but really the 'realist' ethic belongs more to Reinhold. Upon re-reading the article I realised someone might charge me with conflating the two men. So I decided to add their first names in order to clarify. They were cut from the same cloth as far as I'm concerned... profound fools, master theologians that never grasped what the message of Scripture is all about. Among the foremost spiritual villains of the past century, they are perhaps superseded only by certain figures in the Evangelical sphere.