The preceding section of this study dealt with those who rejected physical violence on principle, and who felt no hatred toward the persons who were responsible for evil, but who used methods of bringing about reform which involved the use of non-physical coercion, and in some cases what might be called psychological violence. These advocates of non-violent direct action not only resisted evil negatively; they also attempted to establish what they considered to be a better state of affairs.
This section will deal with true non-resistance. It is concerned with those who refuse to resist evil, even by non-violent means, for the most part basing their belief upon the injunction of Jesus to "resist not evil." For them, non-resistance becomes an end in itself, rather than a means for achieving other purposes. They are less concerned with reforming society than they are with maintaining the integrity of their own lives in this respect. If they have a social influence at all, it is only because by exhortation or, more especially by the force of example, they induce others to accept the same way of life. However, in their refusal to partic.i.p.ate directly in such evil as war, even non-resistants do actually resist evil.
The Mennonites
The Mennonites are the largest and most significant group of non-resistants. For over four hundred years they have maintained their religious views, and applied them with remarkable consistency.[92] Their church grew out of the Anabaptist movement, which had its origins in Switzerland shortly after 1520. The Anabaptists believed in the literal acceptance of the teachings of the Bible, and their application as rules of conduct in daily life. Since they did not depend for their interpretations upon the authority of any priesthood or ministry, differences grew up among them at an early date. The more radical wing, from which the Mennonites came, accepting the Sermon on the Mount as the heart of the Gospel, early refused to offer any physical resistance to evil.[93] Felix Manz, who was executed for his beliefs in 1527, declared, "No Christian smites with the sword nor resists evil."[94]
Hundreds of other Anabaptists followed Manz into martyrdom without surrendering their faith.
In a day before conscription had come into general use, the Anabaptists suffered more for their heresy and their political views than they did for their non-resistance principles. In their belief in rendering unto Caesar only those things which were Caesar"s and unto G.o.d the things that were G.o.d"s, they came into conflict with the authorities of both church and state. The established church they refused to recognize at all, and they came to regard the state only as a necessary instrument to control those who had not become Christians. Far in advance of the times they adopted the principle of complete separation of church and state, which for them meant that no Christian might hold political office nor act as the agent of a coercive state, although he must obey its commands in matters which did not interfere with his duty toward G.o.d. On the basis of direct scriptural authority, they placed the payment of taxes in the latter category.[95]
The modern Mennonites are descended from the followers of Menno Simons, who was born in the Netherlands in 1496. In 1524 he was ordained as a Catholic priest, but he soon came to doubt the soundness of that religion, and found his way into Anabaptist ranks, where he became one of the leading expounders of the radical principles, placing great emphasis upon non-resistance. In his biblical language, he thus stated his belief on this point:
"The regenerated do not go to war, nor engage in strife. They are the children of peace who have beaten their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks, and know of no war. They render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar"s and unto G.o.d the things that are G.o.d"s. Their sword is the sword of the Spirit which they wield with a good conscience through the Holy Ghost."[96]
In time the followers of Menno Simons gained in influence, while branches of the Anabaptist movement which did not follow the principle of non-resistance died out. Here and there other non-resistant groups such as the Hutterites and the Moravian Brethren continued.[97]
Ultimately the Mennonites found their way into several parts of Europe, from the North Sea to Russia, in their search for a home where they might be free from persecution. The founding of Germantown in the new Pennsylvania colony in 1683 marked the beginning of a migration which in the years that followed brought the more radical of them to America.[98]
With the coming of conscription in Europe, those who held most strongly to their non-resistant principles came to the United States to escape military service. Those who remained in Europe gradually gave up their opposition to war, but those in America have largely maintained their original position.[99]
Today they still refrain from opposing evil, and believe in the separation of church and state, which to them means a refusal to hold office and, in many cases, to vote or to have recourse to the courts.
They pay their taxes and do what the state demands, as long as it is not inconsistent with their duty to G.o.d. In case of a conflict in duty, service to G.o.d is placed first. Since they do not believe that it is possible for the world as a whole to become free of sin, they maintain that the Christian must separate himself from it. They make no attempt to bring about reform in society by means of political action or other movements of the sort which we have considered under non-violent direct action.[100]
Since the term "pacifist" has come into general use to designate those opposed to war, the Mennonites have usually made a distinction between themselves as "non-resistants" and the pacifists, who, they claim, are more interested in creating a good society than they are in following completely the admonitions of the Bible. They also disclaim any relationship to such non-resistants as Garrison or Ballou, even though these men reached substantially the same conclusion about the nature of the state, or with Tolstoy who even refused to accept the support of the state for the inst.i.tution of private property. The American non-resistants they regard primarily as reformers of human society, and Tolstoy as an anarchist who rejected the state altogether, rather than accepting it as a necessary evil.[101] In so far as the Mennonites have used social influence at all, it has been through the force of example, and in their missionary endeavors to win other individuals to the same high principles which they themselves follow.
FOOTNOTES:
[92] See the pamphlet by C. Henry Smith, _Christian Peace: Four Hundred Years of Mennonite Peace Principles and Practice_ (Newton, Kansas: Mennonite Publication Office, 1938).
[93] C. Henry Smith, _The Story of the Mennonites_ (Berne, Ind.: Mennonite Book Concern, 1941), 9-30.
[94] John Horsch, _Mennonites in Europe_, (Scottdale, Pa.: Mennonite Publishing House, 1942), 359.
[95] Smith, _Story of the Mennonites_, 30-35.
[96] Quoted by Horsch, 363.
[97] _Ibid._, 365.
[98] Smith, _Story of the Mennonites_, 536-539.
[99] Smith, _Christian Peace_, 12-15.
[100] Edward Yoder, _et al._, _Must Christians Fight: A Scriptural Inquiry_ (Akron, Pa.: Mennonite Central Committee, 1943), 31-32, 41-44, 59-61, 64-65.
[101] _Ibid._, 62-63; and for a full discussion of the att.i.tude see Guy F. Hershberger, "Biblical Non-resistance and Modern Pacifism" in _Mennonite Quarterly Rev._, XVII (July, 1943), 115-135.
The New England Non-Resistants
The Mennonites are undoubtedly right in making a distinction between their position and that of the relatively large group of "non-resistants" which arose in New England during the middle of the nineteenth century. We have already noted the "Declaration of Principles" written by Garrison and accepted by the New England Non-Resistance Society in 1838. Despite the fact that Garrison insisted that an individual ought not to partic.i.p.ate in the government of a state which used coercion against its subjects, his life was devoted to a campaign against the evil of slavery. In the "Declaration" itself he said:
"But, while we shall adhere to the doctrine of non-resistance and pa.s.sive submission to enemies, we purpose, in a moral and spiritual sense, to speak and act boldly in the cause of G.o.d; to a.s.sail iniquity in high places, and in low places; to apply our principles to all existing civil, political, legal and ecclesiastical inst.i.tutions; and to hasten the time, when the kingdoms of this world will have become the kingdoms of our LORD and of his CHRIST, and he shall reign forever."[102]
Garrison was essentially a man of action; the real philosopher of the non-resistance movement was Adin Ballou, a Universalist minister of New England who devoted his whole life to the advancement of its principles.
In 1846 he published his _Christian Non-Resistance: In All Its Important Bearings_, in which he set forth his doctrine, supported it with full scriptural citations, and then presented a catalogue of incidents which to his own satisfaction proved its effectiveness, both in personal and in social relationships.
Although Ballou listed a long series of means which a Christian non-resistant might not use, he insisted that he had a duty to oppose evil, saying:
"I claim the right to offer the utmost moral resistance, not sinful, of which G.o.d has made me capable, to every manifestation of evil among mankind. Nay, I hold it my duty to offer such moral resistance. In this sense my very non-resistance becomes the highest kind of resistance to evil."[103]
Nor did Ballou condemn all use of "uninjurious, benevolent physical force" in restraining the insane or the man about to commit an injury to another. He finally defined non-resistance as "simply non-resistance of injury with injury--evil with evil." Rather, he believed in "the essential efficacy of good, as the counter-acting force with which to resist evil."[104]
In applying his principle rigorously, Ballou, like the Mennonites, came to the conclusion that the non-resistant could have nothing to do with government. If he so much as voted for its officials, he had to share the moral responsibility for the wars, capital punishment, and other personal injuries which were carried out in its name. He insisted:
"There is no escape from this terrible moral responsibility but by a conscientious withdrawal from such government, and an uncompromising protest against so much of its fundamental creed and const.i.tutional law, as is decidedly anti-Christian. He must cease to be its pledged supporter, and approving dependent."[105]
Like the Mennonites, he saw that the reason that governments were unchristian was that the people themselves were not Christian; but unlike the Mennonites he maintained that they might eventually become so, and that it was the duty of the Christian to hasten the day of their complete conversion. "This," he said,
"is not to be done by voting at the polls, by seeking influential offices in the government and binding ourselves to anti-Christian political compacts. It is to be done by pure Christian precepts faithfully inculcated, and pure Christian examples on the part of those who have been favored to receive and embrace the highest truths."[106]
The Mennonites believed that man was essentially depraved; Ballou believed that he was perfectible.[107]
FOOTNOTES:
[102] Allen, _Fight for Peace_, 696.
[103] Ballou, _Christian Non-Resistance_, 3.
[104] _Ibid._, 2-25.
[105] _Ibid._, 18.
[106] _Ibid._, 223-224.
[107] Perhaps this is the point at which to insert a footnote on Henry Th.o.r.eau, whose essay on "Civil Disobedience" is said to have influenced Gandhi. Although he lived in the same intellectual climate that produced Garrison and Ballou, he was not a non-resistant on principle. For instance, he supported the violent attack upon slave holders by John Brown just before the Civil War. He did come to substantially the same conclusions, however, on government. He refused even to pay a tax to a government which carried on activities which he considered immoral, such as supporting slavery, or carrying on war. On one occasion he said, "They are the lovers of law and order who observe the law when the government breaks it." Essentially, Th.o.r.eau was a philosophical anarchist, who placed his faith entirely in the individual, rather than in any sort of organized social action. See the essay on him in Parrington, II, 400-413; and his own essay on "Civil Disobedience" in _The Writings of Henry David Th.o.r.eau_ (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1906), IV, 356-387.