By: Justin Redekopp
“Harry Friesen was Right“
was presented by Layton Friesen
March 20th at Providence College
Harry Friesen was Right
How Old-School Mennonite Non-Resistance Could Still Save Christian Ethics
In his introduction of Dr. Layton Friesen, Nate Wall Bowering makes a bold claim: “Some things only stay alive if they are passed on deliberately. Remembering is not a passive thing.” Bowering details his journey through several ecclesiastical traditions, only to find that his own ancestors shared close ties to the early Mennonite settlers. Dr Friesen will ask: Is there something useful in the Mennonite heritage that if recovered could be useful to the Church today?
The title of Dr. Friesen’s paper addresses his father, Harry Friesen. Layton describes his fathers surprising journey from being considered one of the most progressive members of his conservative church towards a highly conservative stance later in life: acapella music in church, women in head coverings, and other signs of traditional Mennonite modesty. Friesen describes a disagreement between his father and himself: were the Old-School Mennonites right in their beliefs of non-resistance? Describing the traditional Mennonite position, Layton’s father said: “Christians don’t kill; but the government probably should, and that’s just the way it will be for now.”
Friesen adds more details to the Mennonite theology of non-resistance. It finds its roots in medieval monasticism, was “forged in the flames of Reformation persecution”, and cooled into final form by centuries of Mennonite life from Holland to early 20th century North America. While acknowledging the Church’s responsibility to proclaim the salvation of God in Christ, it was to be done mostly by action, following the non-resistant and forgiving example of our Lord on the day of His atonement. How will this bring about the final kingdom of God on earth? Such was God’s mysterious business; the Christian’s business is lives of obedience to God’s word. This yielding to the leading of God, Friesen terms “Gelassenheit”. This is the spiritual heritage of the Anabaptist Mennonite.
However, Friesen observes the quiet Gelassenheit that birthed the Conscientious Objectors of the early 20th century gave way to louder and more successful strains of North American Christianity: Evangelicalism on the right, and social justice, or “peacemaking” on the left. Although these both have roots in the Christian tradition, the polarization over time has driven both sides to compromise or even abandon Christian ethics and orthodoxy to accomplish increasingly reactionary goals. Inevitably, this has lead Mennonites themselves far from their roots to being willing participants in the frantic culture wars of our day.
The value in the Gelassenheit seems to be its spiritual connection to the heart of Christianity: not social or political agendas, but a restored and deeply personal relationship with the Creator through a quiet, meditative, even mundane life. A life centered not around frantic Kingdom activity but trust and obedience. Can this accomplish the expansive vision of Christ in the great commission? One need only think of Paul’s admonition in 1 Thessalonians 4:11 or 1 Timothy 2:1-2, where the Christian community is pointed towards peaceful example over polemic struggle. Furthermore, in the Pauline epistles not everyone is called to the job of an evangelist, and it is difficult to find a place in the New Testament where the church is called to speak prophetic judgment on those outside the church. These passages cases emphasize instead of diminish the value of a church committed to Gelassenheit. In practice, perhaps Friesen’s ideal would be a mass Mennonite return to a neighborly, community, and even contemplative focus, with a de-emphasis of political and social activism.
Does the spirituality of Gelassenheit practiced by early Mennonites abnegate a duty to resist social corruption or abuses of power? Critics say such dereliction has already been the internal fruit of those Mennonite traditions which have refused to assimilate into modern social norms in favor of Gelassenheit. Colonies from Canada to Bolivia are rife with reported cases of both sexual and authoritarian abuse. Isn’t this indicative of the serious flaws of Gelassenheit? Friesen responds not so. It is possible to hold right theology and yet be capable of egregious sin.
Friesen’s defense to this charge appears weak. Biblically, imperfect theology can affect our actions: Job’s friends are rebuked by God for their inaccurate presentation of divine policy resulting in their condemnation of an innocent man. Paul scolds the Galatians for their abandonment of the gospel in favor of circumcision. Unfortunately, this is an argument from the inverse: bad theology leading to bad practice. Rather, Friesen’s claim is that having the right theology does not necessarily prevent significant sin. There may also be Biblical precedent of Friesen’s claim. David was a man after God’s own heart, and yet his sins seem more socially contemptable than either Job’s friends or the Galatians. It is doubtful this will satisfy his critics, but the heart of Friesen’s defense is the reality that if we reject every tradition based on the sins of its members, no tradition will survive.
A better critique would be to realize abnegation is less the sin of direct perpetrators, and more the sin of those in authority to care for the souls of their surrounding community. Has Gelassenheit created passivity in those leaders who should stand up to abuses within the Mennonite community? If this is true, then Gelassenheit might be a proper orientation of a Christian community towards the world, but it should not be the orientation of the pastoral authority towards addressing abuses within their domain. While the pastor does not have the authority to kill under traditional non-resistance, there remain other routes to protect and care for the weak and vulnerable in the community, not excluding the ability to contact law enforcement. Harry Friesen was indeed right. Many of Paul’s epistles show that while Paul affirms living quiet faith-based lives is the goal of the Christian community, Paul’s pastoral concern is often anything but passive.
Gelassenheit has real scriptural credentials, but does it “save” Christian ethics? While evangelism and prophetic positions outside of the original apostolic appointment are deeply a part of the Christian tradition, Paul’s admonition to the Corinthians comes to mind: While spiritual gifts are to be desired, that which lasts till the end are faith, hope, and love. In our cultural worship of desperate expansion, influence, and social evolution, have we elevated the efficacy of empiric evangelicalism or social and political activism over the true reality and destination of Christian life: peaceful, contemplative, community life in God’s creation? Gelassenheit calls us to stop the wholesale ambition that often pushes the for compromise and corruption of traditional Christian ethics and their undergirding orthodoxy. The question that remains for Mennonites: can we turn back the clock and beat our swords back into plowshares?
Dr. Layton Friesen served as Pastor for 19 years within the EMC conference.
He has studied at Steinbach Bible College,
Providence Seminary, Regent College, and Wycliff College.
He currently serves as Dean of Academics at Steinbach Bible College.