 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Admin Techie Joined Feb 7, 2002 42 posts |
 Question of the month: November, 2007 |
Posted Nov 3, 2007; 3:41 pm |
|
This month's online poll:
Are there times when MBs who serve as police officers should use violent force?
Everyone can vote in this poll, even if you're not registered at MB Forum. |
|
|
|
| Bro Member Joined May 4, 2004 912 posts Location: Richmond B.C. |
| |
Posted Nov 3, 2007; 6:25 pm |
|
| They should act just like any other police officer.A police officer is just that and should use appropriate force when necessary. |
|
|
|
| Marshall Member Joined Feb 7, 2002 1191 posts Location: Langley, BC |
| |
Posted Nov 3, 2007; 8:24 pm |
|
An MB who agrees with the conference position on love and nonresistance may for that reason decide not to become a police officer, or choose a part of the force where he or she will not be expected to use violent force. But, there's no requirement for a person to agree with every aspect of our confession in order to be an MB. I know there's at least one statement in the confession that I don't entirely agree with, at least not with how I think it's intended to be read. So, to address the question as posed, I think whether an MB police officer should ever use violent force would depend on that particular MB's convictions on whether violent force should ever be an option for a Christian. If they think it can be a last resort, then they could use violent force in good conscience; if not, they shouldn't.
To connect this with an earlier question of the month, an MB police officer isn't in the same league as an MB military chaplain. A chaplain represents the denomination in the military and so needs to be selected by the denomination, meaning the role carries with it a limited endorsement of the military by the denomination. Any MB can become a police officer without similarly making a statement for the entire denomination. |
|
|
|
| Sudsy Member Joined Sep 23, 2003 2833 posts |
| |
Posted Nov 4, 2007; 2:13 pm |
|
| Quote: | | But, there's no requirement for a person to agree with every aspect of our confession in order to be an MB. |
So, then what defines an 'MB' ? I thought agreeing with the Confession of Faith was a requirement to be an MB member ? What am I missing here ? |
|
|
|
| westcoast frame of mind Moderator |
| MB's and violent police work |
Posted Nov 4, 2007; 5:30 pm |
|
Are there times when MBs who serve as police officers should use violent force?
The way the question is framed seems to imply that a police officer can decide whether or not to use violent force. Anyone signing onto the duties of a peace officer should be willing to use force as necessary.
I am not completely consistent in my application of peace/love and nonresistance when it comes to this question. I agree with the MB Confession of faith regarding love and nonresistance and at the same time believe that a peace loving, nonresistant loving follower of Jesus can be an active member of a police force. At the same time, I think that a peace loving, nonresistant MB person should not be take a combat role in a nation’s armed forces.
The individual in a combat role in a nation’s armed forces is committed to action based on political leaders and complex national issues and interests. For example: our southern neighbour’s entry into Iraq. A soldier lines up and goes where he/she is ordered. On the other hand, in my view, police action, for the most part, is based on more readily identifiable issues. The police officer uses professional judgment in specific situations. I recognize that I am not being consistant.
It might also be useful to expand the definition of “violence.” At times, police officers must be aggressive, forceful - perhaps verbally violent as they control offenders. All forms of violence are not physical.
A further thought: Christian engaged in policing may find it necessary to lie to offenders in order to protect the innocent. Large cities have specialized units that deal with gangs and sexual crimes. Persons who deal with these types of offenders become proficient at duplicity.
Should Christians – MB or not, engage in this type of work?
Last edited by westcoast frame of mind on Nov 5, 2007; 9:01 am; edited 1 time in total. |
|
|
|
| Sudsy Member Joined Sep 23, 2003 2833 posts |
| |
Posted Nov 4, 2007; 7:36 pm |
|
"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 love and peace."
This is from the MB statement of faith.
'Anabaptists regarded their confessional statements simply as a public testimony of what they believed, based on the Word of God.'
So, according to how I read this, NO, an MB never uses violence as it is contrary to their new nature. |
|
|
|
| Sudsy Member Joined Sep 23, 2003 2833 posts |
| |
Posted Nov 5, 2007; 7:27 am |
|
As I think about this question further, Romans 13:1-7 is interesting. This is stating how God has established governing laws for our good and those who enforce those laws are said to be his servants. Romans 13:4. And they are to bring punishments when necessary using 'the sword' which seems to indicate some bodily harm.
So, I guess it becomes a question, for me, whether or not an MB is being 'violent' or not when he/she as a servant of God (police person) acts as an 'agent of wrath'. It seems to me then that there are conditions that allow for correction to be handed out in what might be thought of as violent. So, I guess, with this consideration  , I would change my vote to YES. |
|
|
|
| westcoast frame of mind Moderator |
| Romans 13 |
Posted Nov 5, 2007; 3:42 pm |
|
The way i was raised (in an MB church) was to take Romans 13 in much the way you describe it.
However, the actual task of policing was left to others - not to nonresistant, loving followers of Jesus.
They had a different and higher calling.
Lots of respect for law enforcement - but leave the work to others. |
|
|
|
| Sudsy Member Joined Sep 23, 2003 2833 posts |
| |
Posted Nov 6, 2007; 10:55 am |
|
So, I guess Cornelius, in Acts 10, a 'centurion in what was known as the Italian Regiment', a 'righteous and God-fearing man', a person 'respected by all the Jewish people' must have took on a new vocation in life after He became a follower of Christ. Hmmm, we don't really know that to be true do we.
We also don't know if the centurion in Luke 7, after Jesus remarked that no one in Israel had displayed such faith as this man, returned and continued with his policing role or left his job.
To me, upholding and enforcing laws that God had influenced coming into existence for our own protection, is not violating the way of peace. One could argue it is supporting a continued peace. However, I suppose George Bush might regard the war in Iraq as a policing action for U.S. protection.
So, as most have voted 'YES', what scriptural support do you see for an MB police person using violent force if necessary ? Or do I understand that most MBs that responded to this are not true pacifists ? |
|
|
|
| Marshall Member Joined Feb 7, 2002 1191 posts Location: Langley, BC |
| Response to Sudsy |
Posted Nov 6, 2007; 1:19 pm |
|
| Sudsy wrote: | | I thought agreeing with the Confession of Faith was a requirement to be an MB member ? |
I'm curious as to what led you to that conclusion. Obviously, most MBs do not agree with the entirety of our confession. The section on love and non-resistance is perhaps the most visible example, but there are many others as well. Do you feel it is dishonest for such people (and I include myself in their number) to be MBs?
| Quote: | As I think about this question further, Romans 13:1-7 is interesting. This is stating how God has established governing laws for our good and those who enforce those laws are said to be his servants. Romans 13:4. And they are to bring punishments when necessary using 'the sword' which seems to indicate some bodily harm.
So, I guess it becomes a question, for me, whether or not an MB is being 'violent' or not when he/she as a servant of God (police person) acts as an 'agent of wrath'. It seems to me then that there are conditions that allow for correction to be handed out in what might be thought of as violent. |
I think there's two contexts that are critical when looking at Romans 13. The first is this chapter's context in the book of Romans, directly following Romans 12, and the second is the historical context when it was written, when Nero was emperor of Rome. If you keep Nero in mind as one of the "servants" Paul speaks of, it helps prevent some otherwise tempting interpretations.
Starting a bit further back with Romans 12 gives the following chapter an entirely different feel. The paragraph before Paul speaks of the state, he exhorts the believers in Rome to "live peaceably with all", and "never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God", and lists positive, non-passive ways to treat an enemy. Then, in Romans 13, he explains how God will avenge, partly through the state. This paragraph is bookended by another about loving one's neighbour. Note the extreme contrast between what believers are called to do, and what God will do. He tells believers to be subject to the governing authorities; the idea of believers being among those authorities never comes up. It isn't the topic he's addressing. The government at that time was very different from ours, and the possibility of a believer being part of it was, to quote Vizzini, inconceivable.
| Quote: | | So, I guess Cornelius, in Acts 10, a 'centurion in what was known as the Italian Regiment', a 'righteous and God-fearing man', a person 'respected by all the Jewish people' must have took on a new vocation in life after He became a follower of Christ. Hmmm, we don't really know that to be true do we. |
Exactly, we aren't told what he did, so it would be speculative to assume either way. Positive descriptions of his character do not indicate that he was without sin or without areas of his life that needed change. At the time when he was described with words like "righteous", he was not even a follower of Christ.
| Quote: | | We also don't know if the centurion in Luke 7, after Jesus remarked that no one in Israel had displayed such faith as this man, returned and continued with his policing role or left his job. |
Again, I think it is problematic to base a position on what isn't said, rather than what is said. There are many passages where Jesus directly speaks about how to treat enemies, what to do about injustice, and how we are to be different than the world. I think it is more helpful to look at those texts, rather than looking for texts where Jesus is silent on the issue. Just because Jesus didn't speak to the issue in every circumstance does not mean that we can disregard what he did say in some circumstances.
In Luke 7:36-50, Jesus is anointed by a woman of ill repute. After Jesus tells her, "Your faith has saved you; go in peace", there is no indication as to whether the woman returned and continued with the activities that had given her a poor reputation. This doesn't mean that the woman's disreputable occupation didn't matter. In both this story and the one you mentioned, Jesus is approached by someone despised by the crowd: the centurion because he represented the occupying Romans, and the woman because she was probably a prostitute. In both cases, the person already recognizes that they are unworthy, so Jesus doesn't rub their nose in their sin. In both cases, Jesus doesn't focus on what the crowd focused on, but rather sees in these individuals' words and actions evidence of faith that surpasses that of the crowds who condemned them. But just because Jesus had a more important point to draw out of these encounters does not mean that they invalidate what he said elsewhere about violence and sexuality.
| Quote: | | So, as most have voted 'YES', what scriptural support do you see for an MB police person using violent force if necessary ? Or do I understand that most MBs that responded to this are not true pacifists ? |
I don't think one needs to be a pacifist to be an MB. But, I think that those who do agree with the confessional position on this issue should avoid a career in the police force that would require them to be willing to use violent force. So technically, I would also vote Yes, since I think the only MBs to place themselves in the situation the question asks about should be those who don't feel convicted to never use violent force. |
|
|
|
| Radames Member Joined Feb 17, 2006 322 posts Location: Surrey |
| |
Posted Nov 6, 2007; 2:58 pm |
|
| Quote: | I don't think one needs to be a pacifist to be an MB. But, I think that those who do agree with the confessional position on this issue should avoid a career in the police force that would require them to be willing to use violent force. So technically, I would also vote Yes, since I think the only MBs to place themselves in the situation the question asks about should be those who don't feel convicted to never use violent force
Marshall
|
Since pacifism is one of the main MB distinctives, what would be the value of associating with the MB denomination while not agreeing with the core doctrines of that denomination? Now I do not believe that you have to be an MB to be a Christian, but do not MBs have to agree to the MB confession as part of their baptism/confession of faith before joining an MB church? If so, then to join the church while privately disagreeing with it would be a falsehood. It would also be divisive if you publically advocate for a practice contrary to that of the leadership of your church. If you do not believe in pacifism, then your views would be closer to Baptist than Mennonite.
In the early Mennonite church (in the 1500s), Mennonites were asked to not pursue the professions of police officers, military, or politicians. Those professions are part of the current world order, but our kingdom is not of this world. We are in the world, but not of it. While I am not sure how this has evolved over time, my view is that there is an inherent conflict of interest between being part of the current world order and God's kingdom. We must obey all authority on earth where it does not conflict with that of God, but I do not think we can separate our lives into two distinct spheres -- religion and world. That was one of the key differences between the Lutherans and the anabaptists during the Protestant reformation. Our faith permeates our entire lives -- all aspects of our lives must glorify God.
While we are fortunate that police officers in North America do not usually have to persecute Christians (except perhaps in the case of "hate speech"), this is not the case in other countries, and may change in our country as well. In many countries Christians are considered a problem and are persecuted by police. There may be some jobs called "police officer" that do not involve violence, and if they do not require compromise of our faith then perhaps those jobs would be ok. I do not think we should make hard and fast rules but look at the duties of each position. However, for a pacifist to become a regular police officer (where violent arrests and even killing may be necessary) seems to be a contradiction to me. What is the difference between that and joining the army?
Radames |
|
|
|
| Todd Moderator Joined Sep 9, 2004 1088 posts Location: Winnipeg |
| |
Posted Nov 6, 2007; 3:34 pm |
|
| Radames wrote: | | Quote: | I don't think one needs to be a pacifist to be an MB. But, I think that those who do agree with the confessional position on this issue should avoid a career in the police force that would require them to be willing to use violent force. So technically, I would also vote Yes, since I think the only MBs to place themselves in the situation the question asks about should be those who don't feel convicted to never use violent force
Marshall
|
Since pacifism is one of the main MB distinctives, what would be the value of associating with the MB denomination while not agreeing with the core doctrines of that denomination? |
I see it as a historical distinctive, rather than one that you must agree with. I've asked my pastor before if it was a problem to hold positions contrary to the Confession of Faith, and there were no concerns. If I were to guess, I don't think my pastor agreed with them all either.
| Quote: | | Now I do not believe that you have to be an MB to be a Christian, but do not MBs have to agree to the MB confession as part of their baptism/confession of faith before joining an MB church? |
I wasn't asked. Upon baptism at our current church, you just have to love and follow Jesus (to paraphrase it somewhat). There's no mention of denominational loyalty, although there is some statements associated with membership regarding accountability within the congregation.
| Quote: | | It would also be divisive if you publically advocate for a practice contrary to that of the leadership of your church. If you do not believe in pacifism, then your views would be closer to Baptist than Mennonite. |
I have found that MBs are less hardcore about pacifism than the Mennonite Conference, but my experience is anecdotal.
Practically speaking, I prefer a loose confession of faith. Realistically, MBers don't go off all the time marrying MBers. Couples don't always agree in their theological beliefs. One may be a pacifist, one may not be. Should we exclude them both? Should we expect one person to go to one church, and the other to another? One of the reasons I'm an MBer is because some other denominations don't like the mode of my wife's baptism. The MB church used to discriminate as well, where an MBer couldn't marry a GCer (General Conference Mennonite) in the MB church unless the GCer got re-baptized with the dunking instead of the sprinkling. |
|
|
|
| Sudsy Member Joined Sep 23, 2003 2833 posts |
| |
Posted Nov 6, 2007; 4:07 pm |
|
| Quote: | | I'm curious as to what led you to that conclusion. Obviously, most MBs do not agree with the entirety of our confession. The section on love and non-resistance is perhaps the most visible example, but there are many others as well. Do you feel it is dishonest for such people (and I include myself in their number) to be MBs? |
I will have to check this out further but I believe acknowledging an acceptance of the confession of faith is a requirement for membership at our MB church. I may have misunderstood.
I don't have any thoughts on whether it is 'dishonest' or not but I am curious as to how much one needs to believe regarding the confession of faith to be acceptable as a member. 90% ? 50% ? Are there parts that hold more weight than others ?
This is a statement from the Bakerview MB Church in Abbotsford, B.C. - 'As a church family we affirm the Confession of Faith of the Mennonite Brethren Church.' I take this to mean, everything in the confession. Perhaps, I am not viewing this correctly. Could it be that some MB churches require agreeing with the entire confession while others do not ?
Thanks for the thoughts on Romans 12 and 13. I agree we can't read into what was not said and ignore what was said in other areas of scripture. Jesus actually said to do good to those who despitefully use us, so how can any Christian police officer fulfill this command ? Or turn the other cheek. Are these only commands for pacifists or are they for all believers ? Anyway, confused I remain.  |
|
|
|
| Bro Member Joined May 4, 2004 912 posts Location: Richmond B.C. |
| |
Posted Nov 6, 2007; 7:55 pm |
|
Todd wrote:
| Quote: | | The MB church used to discriminate as well, where an MBer couldn't marry a GCer (General Conference Mennonite) in the MB church unless the GCer got re-baptized with the dunking instead of the sprinkling. |
I agree with this .My wife also grew up as a GC er.When we were first married we went to a baptist church where I was member.As a couple we found a home in an M.B. church and have moved our membership around to keep it current.
Let's keep moving forward as a conference and leave the mistakes of the past in the past.
I also agree with Todd.Let us hold on to our confession of faith losely. |
|
|
|
| westcoast frame of mind Moderator |
| Paper on this question |
Posted Nov 6, 2007; 8:03 pm |
|
Is Force Sometimes Justified? Gibt es "Legitime Gewalt"? by A James Reimer of Gonrad Grebel University and Toronto School of Theology.
ploughshares.ca/...PaperReimer.htm
I found Reimer's paper a good resource. |
|
|
|
|
|
