Mennonite Nazis and the Two Kingdom Concept

In 2017, I graduated from Sharon Mennonite Bible Institute. For the completion of that study program, I submitted a thesis on the particularly bleak topic of how Mennonites under Hitler’s rule were involved in various aspects of the Nazi regime. This was a topic I had been collecting information on for some time, and this paper is the result. A few notes before getting to the thesis, which appears as submitted to the school for graduation:

This was written in late 2016 and early 2017. Since then, I have traveled and learned quite a lot more. While I stand by the core elements of this paper, there are some conclusions here that I’m not sure I would maintain today. I also make a number of statements about the refugee crisis in the Middle East, which was at its peak at the time. Here again hindsight has illuminated much more of the immense complexity of what was going on at the time, and this paper does not do a good job reflecting that. I think I oversimplified the situation and also due some conclusions that were hasty. Regardless, I stand by the research that I did on the Mennonite Nazis, and you are welcome to explore more through the sources listed at the end of this paper.

Since I wrote this, my friend Gertrude Slabach completed the incredibly important task of turning Ruth Reimer’s story (one of the key sources I interviewed for this project) into a book, which provides a much more detailed and complete picture of the Mennonites during that era. I encourage you read it. We also produced a lecture on the Mennonite Nazis, which you can find on the Anabaptist Perspectives YouTube channel here.

Perhaps the greatest element that has separated the Anabaptist worldview from that of the Protestants is the emphasis on the doctrine of two kingdoms: the world and the Kingdom of God. This has historically been a cornerstone of Anabaptist theology and set them apart from Constantine’s approach of the church and state as one. Here we will give a brief outline of what this doctrine teaches.

The two-kingdom concept is first recognized in the early teachings of Jesus, but has its roots deep within the Old Testament. The covenant of God with Abraham was that He would make a nation that was separate from those nations surrounding them, one that would be holy and pure in their worship of God.

With the coming of Christ, the bar was raised. Now, not only were the follower of God still called to a strict standard of conduct, they were also called to live pure lives on every level. It was no longer enough to not kill; one must also not hate. Christ followers were called to not just love their neighbors as the Old Testament taught, but to also love their enemies as well.

What Jesus was building was, and is, a group of dedicated people who are living out the Kingdom of God on this earth, awaiting the time when God’s Kingdom will reign. This theology is picked up by Paul and the apostles, who teach that we in the world, but not of it. We are citizens of a Heavenly Place.

Nonresistance Defined

Out of these teachings arose the doctrine of nonresistance, the practical belief system which commends all Christians to live peaceably and not use violence as a means to accomplish a greater good. Rather, in this view all violence is wrong and is never the proper solution.

But this definition is incomplete. Indeed, the very word nonresistance does not capture the essence of what Jesus taught and arguably detracts from the vision he presented. Anabaptists have often had difficultly concisely defining what exactly nonresistance entails. Indeed, Stephen Russell spends several pages just defining the word in his book on the topic (Russell 4-7).

The very word nonresistance by definition implies passivity. It defines the doctrine by what it is not (not resistant), rather than by what it is. Nonresistance, at face value, insinuates that Christians will live passive lives, never rocking the boat, never standing up for what is right, and never resisting that which is evil. And here lies the fundamental flaw. I strongly contend that nonresistance is much deeper and richer than what we have laid out thus far. A more accurate representation would, I believe, be this:

Nonresistance is not passive; it is a passion for a better world. It is us, as Christians, looking at the world in its present, fallen state and not being OK with how it is. Nonresistance is a motivator, a vision of a better world, an obtainable ideal of grace and peace. It is something worth striving for, and something worth fighting for.

This concept perfect with the ultimate example in Scripture: Jesus. Jesus had an impeccably flawless balance between living the concept of nonresistance while being the ultimate example of passion for a better world. There is one word that does not apply to Jesus’ time on earth, and that is passivity. He was deliberate in everything he did, with the end goal being the maximum glorification of the Father. Christ shifted the focus from earthly kingdoms to the Heavenly Kingdom, thereby rendering physical violence obsolete. All the energy that was being dedicated to building the earthly kingdom of Israel was now to be trained on establishing the ultimate Kingdom. Nonresistance is not about the use of violence, or being passive in the face of evil; it is about focusing all our energy into a cause so much greater, more powerful, eternal, and good than anything that physical violence could ever hope to obtain.

This is laid out beautifully in the life of Peter. Peter is the very definition of passion, and he often exhibited this trait in amusing but authentic ways. In Matthew 26:47-53 we have the story of how Peter acted on this passion in order to, in his mind, save Jesus from arrest. But instead of Jesus being grateful for Peter’s enthusiasm, Jesus utters some of the most profound words of the New Testament: “Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword.”

In other words, Jesus was pointing out that this is not the correct way. And after this, Peter becomes a shell of who he was. He becomes broken, unsure of himself, and even denies he knew Jesus.

Until the book of Acts. Suddenly, Peter catching the vision for what Jesus meant by the Kingdom of God. When the Holy Spirit comes, Peter is his old self again, full of passion. But now that passion has the proper focus. Immediately he began planting churches and changing people’s lives, sparking the movement that quickly became accused of “turning the world upside down” (Acts 17:6). Peter caught the vision.

A fundamental shift happened in the worldview of Peter that night recorded in Matthew 26. Jesus pointed out that he was using the wrong tools; Peter’s passion was misdirected. The correction is not to become more passive, but rather use that passion in a different way. Jesus’ instruction to “put away the sword” would have been a cause of confusion for Peter if Jesus had not shown him a better way, a way for him to direct his energy into the Kingdom of God. But instead of using violence, Peter was to change people’s heart, to show them that perfect, obtainable ideal of peace and grace that only comes from Christ.

In a sense, just as nonresistance is about having the proper passion and striving for the Kingdom, it is also equally intertwined with discipleship. Nonresistance is about changing the world by changing people’s hearts, one at a time. It is about building people from the ground up (instead of the top down) into a way of life that aligns itself with Christ. And this is also the definition of discipleship: change people’s hearts at the deepest level to conform them to the image of Jesus.

This is why I believe that nonresistance falls woefully short of capturing the vision Jesus presented to the disciples. It is something that is actively engaging the world, building people up, mentoring them, striving for positive change and real answers to the systemic violence in the world. It does not watch passively and allow evil to ravage people’s hearts, but rather dives into the thick of the fight, battling Satan for the very souls of those around us. The foundational shift is that we are no longer fighting “flesh and blood” but spiritual forces. Christians are only “nonresistant” in the sense that we do not actively fight in this physical world. But that is where the applicability of that word ends for the Christian; we are to be like Peter, who engaged people’s hearts and “turned the world upside down.”      

Nonresistance in the Old Testament

A common misconception in modern Christendom revolves around the teachings of Christ on nonresistance and the two kingdoms. My understanding of this doctrine had always been that it first had its origins in the teachings of Christ and the apostle, confining this theology to the New Testament alone. We seem to have obtained the mindset that the Old and the New Testaments are like two different books.

Violence reigned supreme in the founding of the kingdom of Israel, sometimes in the extreme. How can we reconcile the seeming difference been the Old Testament, where God commanded the destruction of entire nations and demanded death to those who violated his ways, with the New Testament, where we have seen that Jesus commands his followers to love all peoples and the put way the sword?

The concept of nonresistance spans the entirety of Scripture. Obviously not to the extent that Jesus laid out on the Sermon on the Mount, but the careful eye can still see that love for one’s neighbor and even enemies finds its origins in not the teachings of Jesus, but rather further back in Israel’s history.

On the other hand, if we view the Bible as a “flat book” as Protestants teach, then we can easily justify going to war and living for a worldly kingdom based on Old Testament examples (Yoder). However, the Anabaptist view of the Bible is one complete, progressive story which flows towards an ultimate end: the return of the Christ and His Kingdom. Each doctrine and concept in Scripture is a progression, building more fully as God’s plan is revealed. Historically this has been the Anabaptist approach to Scripture, which teaches that the pinnacle of Biblical doctrine is the life, teaching, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Therefore, we would expect to find that the doctrine of nonresistance progresses with the flow of the Bible, until it reaches its climax with the coming of the Christ.

It can be said with no exaggeration that the idea of loving your enemies is based in the Hebrew Scriptures; Jesus simply expounded on it.  When He told His listeners "Do not resist evil" and “Love your enemies", this teaching actually began in the Torah. Mosaic Law said that "If you meet your enemy's ox or his donkey going astray, you shall bring it back to him.  If you see the donkey of one who hates you lying down under its burden, you shall refrain from leaving him with it; you shall rescue it with him" (Exodus 23:4,5; see also Deuteronomy 22:1-2, 4).

As far back as Genesis we see the principle that Jesus taught about laying up the sword. In Genesis 9:6, God gives this command to Noah immediately following the flood: “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image.” Jesus told his disciples to “put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword” (Matthew 26:52). Both of these verses are pointing back to the ultimate principle that human life is sacred and as mere humans we cannot determine who has the right to live and who does not. Bible scholars often point out these two verses as proof of that doctrine, and most believe that Jesus was quoting Genesis when he gave this command.

Proverbs also has much to say about living nonresistantly: "If your enemy is hungry, give him bread to eat, and if he is thirsty, give him water to drink" (Proverbs 25:21). Proverbs also teaches to not repay evil done to us: "​​​​​​​​Do not say, “I will repay evil”" (20:23). Psalms tells us to pray for those who do evil to us: "​​​​​​​They repay my love with accusations, but I continue to pray" (109:4).

Jesus famously taught “Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." (Matthew 5:39) Interestingly, this is almost a direct quote of Lamentations 3:30: "Let him give his cheek to the one who strikes, and let him be filled with insults." Proverbs talks of the same thing: "​​​​​​​​Do not say, “I will do to him as he has done to me; I will pay the man back for what he has done”" (24:29; see also Isaiah 50:6).

In the Torah, the Israelites were not even permitted to hold grudges and hatred for any of their own people (Leviticus 19:18). Jesus did with this law was expand it to include all men, not just the Israelites.

Not only do the various commands stress a nonresistant attitude, this principle was also taught by example. A clear story of this is in Genesis. "And Isaac dug again the wells of water that had been dug in the days of Abraham his father, which the Philistines had stopped after the death of Abraham. But when Isaac's servants dug in the valley and found there a well of spring water, the herdsmen of Gerar quarreled with Isaac's herdsmen, saying, “The water is ours.” So he called the name of the well Esek, because they contended with him. Then they dug another well, and they quarreled over that also, so he called its name Sitnah. And he moved from there and dug another well, and they did not quarrel over it. So he called its name Rehoboth, saying, “For now the LORD has made room for us, and we shall be fruitful in the land”" (Genesis 26:18-22). Isaac gives a very clear example of turn the other cheek in the area of business. Losing a well in biblical times was a significant lose; allowing the other party to walk away with no punishment would not have been easy.

The nonresistant principles Jesus presented on the Sermon on the Mount were not new concepts. In fact, many were near direct quotes from the Hebrew Scriptures. Indeed, the only thing Christ did was expound on their true depth and meaning. He did not give a new set of laws, nor form a new doctrine, as he clearly states in: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished" (Matthew 5:17-19).

When we understand this, coming to grips with the seeming contradiction between the Old and New Testaments in regards to war is much easier.

Israel only went to war under the direct command of God. Obviously, killing needlessly or without God’s command was wrong according to the Ten Commandments. In the Old Testament, God was setting apart a specific and physical geographic location for his people; it was very exclusive. The culture, laws, and customs that God dictated for the people of Israel were designed to set them apart from surrounding nations and keep a pure people through which to fulfill his divine plan for redemption.

At the coming of Jesus, the uniqueness of the Israelites had served its purpose and the law was adapted to include all peoples of the earth, thus birthing Christianity. Old Testament law was part of the progression leading up to Jesus and the ultimate goal of God’s redemption for all mankind.

Did God change? Of course not. The battle plan for redemption of humanity was progressed from setting aside a specific people (race) to setting aside a peculiar people (the church) that can include anyone now living on this earth. The Kingdom has moved to its ultimate form of being in the lives and hearts of its subjects, no longer being represented by a literal, earthly kingdom. 

When the Church Becomes Like the World

Constantine was the emperor of the Rome Empire from 306 to 337 AD.  The “reformation” brought about by Constantine had massive effects that are still predominate today. The clearest (and most impacting) was the shift in theology the two kingdoms. In the early church, there was a clear separation between God’s Kingdom and the world’s kingdoms; with Constantine, the church had become the official religion of the Roman Empire. We still see this doctrine in mainstream Christianity all across the globe. 

Sadly, the church carrying this doctrine of a militant church is most graphically seen in the case of the Crusades. The Crusades came about under the direct order of Pope Urban II, who commanded the Christians of Europe to band together to defeat the Muslims (who controlled the Holy Land at the time) and free the oppressed Christians. His speech, given in France in November 1095, announcing this “holy ambition” is a vivid example of how far the church can go when it leaves behind the doctrine of Two Kingdoms.

“They [Muslims] have killed and captured many, and have destroyed the churches and devastated the empire. If you permit them to continue thus for awhile with impurity, the faithful of God will be much more widely attacked by them. On this account I, or rather the Lord, beseech you as Christ's heralds to publish this everywhere and to persuade all people of whatever rank, foot-soldiers and knights, poor and rich, to carry aid promptly to those Christians and to destroy that vile race from the lands of our friends. I say this to those who are present, it meant also for those who are absent. Moreover, Christ commands it.

All who die by the way, whether by land or by sea, or in battle against the pagans, shall have immediate remission of sins. This I grant them through the power of God with which I am invested. O what a disgrace if such a despised and base race, which worships demons, should conquer a people which has the faith of omnipotent God and is made glorious with the name of Christ! With what reproaches will the Lord overwhelm us if you do not aid those who, with us, profess the Christian religion!” (Mar 1996)

Notice the language used. The pope claims God’s authority on this declaration, saying that “Christ commands it.” Yet Christ did exactly the opposite. Instead of waging “holy war” against the Roman heathens that were oppressing God’s people, He chose to fight injustice through love. And we can be sure that Pope Urban was not motivated by a deep love for Muslims when he commanded the invasion of the Middle East. Almost unbelievably he promises that “all who die by the way….shall have immediate remission of sins.” This is not the way of the Cross. Because of what Pope Urban commanded, the church launched the Crusades, a senseless and brutal war in the Holy Land that lasted from 1095 to 1291. An estimated 1.5 million (or more) where killed; to this day, tension in the Middle East are high as a result of the church’s conquest to wipe out Islam from the Holy Land (Michaelson).

One of the saddest and most unbelievable things about the Crusades is the current Protestant view. A prime example of this can be seen in the Church History 301 class at one of the largest evangelical universities in America.[1] The students were required to write a short essay on their view of the Crusades and post it to the online class forum. Some of the essays and responses border on the incredible. They are quoted at length (emphasis added):

“This begs the question, “Were the Crusades representative of a Christian worldview?” Immediately, a distinction must be made between what the purposes of the Crusades were, from the atrocities and war crimes that took place during the Crusades. We must be very clear that Christianity in no way, shape, or form condones any of the illicit behavior that occurred during the Crusades.

With that said, we must look at the purposes of the Crusades.…Pope Urban II had two purposes in calling for the Crusades; to free the Eastern churches and the church in Jerusalem from Muslim oppression, and to liberate Jerusalem from Muslim rule. This is the context in how we must judge if the Crusades fit within a Christian worldview. Remember, the Crusades were in response to an immediate and overwhelming threat from the Turks, who were indeed Muslim. While Jerusalem and the Holy Land had been under Muslim rule for centuries, the Turks had taken up a Holy War of their own and were looking to expand their territory and influence. The Crusades were a direct response to this Muslim Holy War.

In order to know if the Crusades truly represent a Christian worldview one must examine what Scripture says. Mark Liederbach, Associate Professor of Christian Ethics at the Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, gives us four points on that subject. First, “God is not opposed to using warfare to protect His people or accomplish His purposes.” The Old Testament is full of examples of this. Second, “Jesus’ words about retaliation and loving one’s enemy in Matt. 5:38-48 indicates He is emphasizing one’s own behavior…[n]or does it speak directly to a nation-state that witnesses another people or nation enduring an unjust attack.” Third, there are “several New Testament passages affirm the right of the state to ‘wield the sword’ (Rom. 13:5; 1Pet. 2:13-14).” Finally, in “2 Thess. 1:7-8 depicts Jesus Himself as a conquering king.”

Christians can also use the “Just War theory” as a lens to examine the Crusades with. “’Just War theory’ provides the criteria delimiting when it is appropriate to go to war.””

“The reasons, or principles, the Crusades were launched on were the freeing of oppressed churches under Muslim rule and the freeing of Jerusalem and the Holy Land from Muslim rule. Pope Urban II, acting on the request from the Byzantine Emperor, had the right as a leader to call for the Crusades. However, when we look at how the Crusaders themselves conducted themselves during the war, it is plain to see that they did not act Christ-like. The Crusades themselves may have been justified and, in spirit, are representative of a Christian worldview; however, the same cannot be said of the conduct and heinous acts of the Crusaders.” James G. 12-15-15

“[Fellow student in response to James G.’s essay] The crusades are fascinating and while reading your paper I can [see] that you may have thought the same as well.  When I read about them I get fired up inside and wonder why Christians are no longer as radical. Can you imagine how much we could change if we just got together as one unit and fought a cause? The crusades united people and they were able to make a real change in the world. We need a real change today and what better way than a crusade. As you stated in your paper that even though the crusades were created for the right reasons the acts [and] the results from them may not be Christian. The question remains: is it ok to commit theses heinous acts in the name of Jesus? I believe that you [should] do whatever needs to be done to keep the kingdom together. James, do you think that [we] should save as many as we can in the name of Jesus no matter what it takes? I am glad that I haven’t had to make a decision of this magnitude yet because I don’t know what I [would] decide.” - Lailita M.

“….I believe the Crusades were necessary for the Church, and [they] only fought for their freedom and their lands. Perhaps, the great persecution of Rome against Christianity made the final push for a Crusade.…the Church got to a point that had enough of the persecution and raised up an army with Christian background [and] faith for the cause.” - Erik V.

Sadly, if you are approaching the Crusades from a Protestant worldview, the ideal of what the Crusades were trying to accomplish seems perfectly sound. Why shouldn’t Christians do “whatever needs to be done” to maintain the Christian worldview? If you do not hold to the Two Kingdom doctrine, you will be forced to come to the same conclusion that these students arrived at.

It was not until the time of the Reformation in the 1500s that the doctrine of the two kingdoms went through a major revival. Many reformers expressed concern that the Roman church was teaching heresy and was becoming a politically run system instead of a Christ-centered church.

However, the reformation, in the Anabaptist opinion, did not take these theological changes far enough, stopping short of breaking all ties with the Catholic system. Thus the Anabaptist movement was begun, which stressed salvation as a personal decision to follow Christ. It was at this point in time that the two kingdom doctrine also experienced a revival when the Anabaptists chose the way of nonresistance and separating themselves from the kingdom of this world.[2]

Unfortunately, this theological revolution was not properly maintained. As the years progressed into the 20th century the Mennonite church abandoned this doctrine in one of the most extreme examples of the Anabaptist church joining the system of the world.

Mennonite Nazis

Perhaps the darkest stain on the Mennonite people occurred in Germany during Hitler’s Nazis Regime. During World War II, many Mennonites did not resist the Nazi regime, often times publicly expresses favor and some going so far as to join the Nazi party.

It is worth noting that nearly every church group joined with the Nazi party (Rausch). The level of passivity and deception for this to happen must have been enormous. While there certainly were individuals that stood against Hitler (Wells), as a whole the church system did not put up substantial resistance. We focus primarily on the Anabaptist as that is most relevant to this paper. Most of the church in German was completely deceived long before World War II began and the evils of the Nazi Party began coming to light. Very few were willing to stand up against the madness of the Third Reich. Most completely accepted this new kingdom in Germany, an empire that was supposed to last a thousand years.

Many examples abound of Mennonites standing for this belief in times of war (Hershberger 113-197; Horst), often at great personal expense. During World War I many Mennonites stood for nonresistance (Hartzler). However, it would be untrue to say that this has universally been the case. Germany during World War II is perhaps the greatest example of this. As Regier (2004) notes, “The Prussian Mennonite [who showed the most open acceptance of Hitler] embrace of National Socialism did not happen overnight.” The full history and story of how the German Mennonite church came to this place is long and complex. A short outline will have to suffice.

At the end of World War I the Mennonites in Germany disregarded these doctrines in perhaps the greatest straying from two-kingdom teaching. Mennonites began to accept Augustine’s just war beliefs and became deceived by the Nazi Party. Sadly, and incredibly, many accepted Hitler, some going as far as joining the Nazi Regime and participating in the Holocaust, both directly and indirectly. Yet at the same time the Mennonites still were church-going, Bible-believing Christians; these were not rogue, backslidden individuals but rather active church members and even church pastors and bishops.

What would cause a people that have historically been non-resistant to fall so far as to be directly a part of the Nazi war machine?

According to Rempel (508), the story began in 1917 with the Russian Revolution and the following civil war. Out of fear and panic, many Mennonites left their non-resistance behind and formed self-defense groups in order to protect their homes and families. Under Communist rule, the Mennonite infrastructure began to fall apart. By the mid-1930s, the Russia Mennonite church was nearly erased, and had become vulnerable to the atheistic views of Communism. Slowly they began to conform to the world around them; as a result, many beliefs were lost.

In World War I, Mennonites were under heavy persecution from the Russian government. When the German army begin liberating them from the Russians in the spring of 1918, a new sense of loyalty for Germany developed (Schrag). By the time of Hitler, the Mennonites had already lost many of their values and beliefs. With the coming of the German liberators they began to develop a sense of strong patriotism for Germany. All these feelings came to a head under the regime of Hitler in the 1930s and 40s.

Rempel points out the underlining motives for the Mennonite involvement:

“Mennonites who had survived the Stalinist purges were strongly inclined to admire Hitler, the anti-Stalin, and were often quite willing to join any Nazi organization as a kind of reflexive passionate action. Many Mennonite survivors of the Stalinist terror and.... deportation campaigns expressed virulent hatred for both Jews and Communists as equivalent evils. Mennonites generally resented, envied and despised Jews because so many of them seem to have been found in the ranks of the Soviet secret police and the Communist party cadre, as well as among the supervisors and managers of collective farms....it was easy to regard Jews as part of the Soviet class enemy on whom raw revenge could now be exacted under the guise of official “police” work....the doctrine of nonresistance had long been surrendered in favor of nationalistic loyalty to the fatherland” (547-549 emphasis added).

It appears that the Mennonites seemed to truly believe the main points of Augustine’s just war theory applied to them. These main points taught that: the cause of war must be just, the intent must be pure, and the objective must be just (Reed, class notes 3/18/14). It can be assumed, from what evidence we have, that the Mennonites truly did believe that their cause was just.

When the Nazi Party came to power in 1933, they canceled farming debts and ceased all agricultural imports. The German farmer essentially became part of the privileged class overnight. (Regier) This obviously greatly benefited the Mennonites, and support for Hitler ran strong throughout. In Prussia this was most noticeable. On September 10, 1933, shortly after these changes occured, a church council of German Mennonites sent him a telegram officially expressing their support to their Führer (German word for leader):

            To Chancellor Adolf Hitler, Berlin:

The Conference of East and West Prussian Mennonites, assembled today in Tiegenhagen, Free State of Danzig, feels deep gratitude for the powerful revival that God has given our nation through your energy, and promises joyful cooperation in the upholding of our Fatherland through the power of the Gospel, faithful to the motto of our forefathers: No other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid which is Jesus Christ. (Regier 2004)

Adolf Hitler actually sent an official response to the Mennonite’s telegram, saying

“For your loyalty and your readiness to cooperate in the up building of the German nation, expressed in your letter to me, I express my sincere thanks.” (Regier 2004)

It is important to note that not all Mennonites were this enthusiastic about Hitler and the Nazi party; the Mennonites in Prussia were among the stronger supporters.

Mennonites were involved with the Germany army and government in many ways (Jantzen). The majority of Mennonites were involved indirectly, and often joined years before the war began. In Prussia, support for the Nazi Party escalated from being favorable to Hitler, to actually joining the German army.

As recorded by the June 1934 edition of the Mennonitische Blätter, military nonresistance was officially erased from the Mennonite confession. As a result, no Prussian Mennonite refused the call to serve. Mennonite boys wore their German uniforms with pride and viewed the service of their country as an honorable duty. In the Mennonite church of Heubuden, for example, out of a congregation of about 2,500, some 200-250 young men fought in uniform. Mennonites fully supported the war, with the Mennonitische Blätter extolling the virtues of the German armies, and praising God for their victories in the battlefields (Regier).

Henrich Weins, a Mennonite, joined the Nazi party in Danzig, Poland, and shortly afterward moved to the elite SS. He later became a captain, yet at the same time described himself as a “believer in God”. However, sometime after this (between the years 1931-1939) he did leave the Mennonite church. Unfortunately, this man was directly involved with the deaths of thousands of Jews by means of systemic, mass killings (Weaver 6).

The clearest examples of Mennonite involvement come from the camp of Stutthof, which was located just a few miles from Danzig, Poland. At the time, Danzig had the highest density of Mennonite residents of any place in the world.

When it was first constructed in 1939, “A Mennonite builder, Gerhard Epp....served as some sort of general contractor to the SS in assuming responsibility for the construction of all buildings on the premises. It is not much of an exaggeration to say that a Mennonite built the barracks for the first concentration camp on non-German soil” (Rempel 520).

Mennonites also served as guards in the area; some were later tried for war crimes and sentenced to prison (Rempel 517, 518). As the Stutthof camp used its prisoners for slave labor, and some of the local Mennonite farmers used the Jews for cheap labor: “...it has also become clear that Mennonite farmers and businessmen exploited the available inexpensive labor provided by Stutthof prisoners, without any apparent moral compunction” (Rempel 519).

Even sadder cases could be shown, where Jews were literally rounded up to be shot, and the Mennonites of the town never protested or attempted to stop the horrid crime (Rempel 529-531). Some of the commando teams responsible recruited volunteers from local residents to help with the task; according to eyewitness accounts, some of those recruited were young Mennonite men, as well as Lutheran (Rempel 532).

The Ruth Yoder Story

In a paper by Clifford Schrock he states: “I recently heard the testimony of a lady who grew up in a Mennonite family in Germany during World War II. What captured my attention was that her father was also an officer in Hitler’s Nazi army. No, he had not fallen away, left the church, and then joined the military. He was an active member in good standing in his Mennonite church and the Nazi party” (Schrock). The woman he refers to is Ruth Yoder, who now lives in the United States. I had the privilege to meet Ruth and was given access to various records of the war. Her story is truly incredible, and one that should not be forgotten. The full story of Ruth Yoder (whose maiden name was Reimer) is told in a 57-page unpublished manuscript by John Gingerich (Gingerich). Unfortunately, Gingerich died before it could be completed and published. He also spent quite a bit of time compiling and translating the post-war letters from the Reimer family.

Her father, Johann Reimer, who was a Mennonite and strong Christian, served in the elite SS officer position, even serving as a guard at one of Hitler’s mansions (Gingerich 15). Ruth tells stories of how many Mennonite pastors from their area joined in (Gingerich 16). She could only think of one pastor who even considered that Hitler may be evil; in response another pastor called him out and said “How dare you question the servant of God!”, referring to Hitler (Ruth Yoder).

Ruth’s father never realized how evil Hitler truly was, and how wrong he had been, until years after the war (Ruth Yoder). Even to the very end of the war, Johann Reimer was convinced that Germany (the Motherland) was the right thing, and credited his miraculous escape from the Allied invasion to his prayer to God (Ruth Yoder). When interrogating by the British, he insisted that he was still a member of the church (Gingerich 19). Because of this he was released, becoming a “refugee carrying in his mind the shattered dream of Hitler’s Third Reich where there will be prosperity, peace and happiness for two thousand years to come (Gingerich 22). His family was terrified of the coming Allied forces; whenever a soldier would enter the house “it was always a relief if it was a German [soldier]” (Gingerich 29); the Nazi army was the “good guys.”

Ruth even told stories of how Jewish prisoners from the local concentration camp would be put to work on their farm; incredibly, the family didn’t think anything of it (Ruth Yoder). It seems mind blowing that a Mennonite family could be so unaware of what was happening just down the road in the camp.

How could a family be so deceived? Where did the Reimer family go wrong?

Reasons for Mennonite Involvement

The clearest reason we find for Mennonites supporting the inhuman acts of the Holocaust was that they had lost the doctrine of the two kingdoms. They began to associate themselves with Germany, and the results escalated into retaliation against Jews. Apparently, they no longer believed that they were citizens of another kingdom, and had adopted Augustine’s theory on “just war.” They had fallen to the age-old trap of patriotism and involvement in the kingdoms of this world; they are not the first, and most certainly will not be the last.  

When some of the truths about Mennonite involvement began coming to light, there was some response and pubic apologize made. Sadly, it was as late as 2015 before some of these stories came to light and the Mennonites in Germany made a public apology (Roth). On September 25-28 more than 100 people participated in a conference titled “Mennonites in the Era of National Socialism” in Munster, Germany. It was the first time “since the end of World War II that the Mennonites from Germany, Switzerland, Paraguay, the Netherlands and the former Soviet Union spoke openly about their experiences” (Roth 1). They noted that the “Mennonites were simply ‘equal among equals’ in their support for National Socialism” (Roth 1). Sadly, many at the conference “acknowledged that speaking openly about the wartime experiences of their parents….had been taboo for 70 years” (Roth 19). One participant “shared childhood memories of a long series of trains and wagons going by his house, transporting Jews to a nearby concentration camp at Stutthof. ‘There was no question about what was happening there,’ he said. [He] also recalled Jews from the Stutthof camp being forced to serve as slave laborers on surrounding farms, including those of Mennonites, and being locked into the stall of his family’s barn at night” (Roth 19).

But the response and understanding of the situation has been minimal when compared to the atrocities committed. The current Anabaptist church has, for the most part, been largely unaware of what happened only a generation ago. If we do not make deliberate effort to fully understand what happened, and come to grips with it, we may not learn from past failures. We may, like those in German, drop our convictions about the two kingdoms when the political landscape changes and it becomes more convenient to do so. 

When the church strayed from the vital doctrine of the Two Kingdoms, we have clearly shown that this came at a terrible price. All of this finds it roots in the church, both on an individual and governmental level, beginning to stress loyalty instead of integrity. The church began to focus on staying loyal to the system that had been created over the centuries, instead of seeking God’s Truth through his Word in their decision making.

Historically, this was a major contributing factor to the origin of the Anabaptist movement. The Roman Church had lost the centerpiece of Scripture and was being run as a system, without the input of Godly men or even of biblical truth. Instead, they progressed down the path of running the church as an impersonal, top-down system that became so powerful it was impossible to change. The only option left was for those who insist on following truth was to leave this ideological system. The Roman Catholic Church had become the very definition of an ideology.

The church that Christ founded was never designed to be run as a system of loyalty to a certain set of principles but rather as a group of likeminded people serving God based on integrity to his Word. The “kingdom of God is within”, not enclosed within church walls nor contained in a system of loyalty to a specific type of church or theology; the kingdom of God in individual lives requires absolute integrity to God’s Word (Truth).

The Practicality of Nonresistance

As we examined above, nonresistance was largely lost in Nazi Germany. It is worth noting that it was not only the Mennonites that sided with Hitler; the vast majority of Protestants did as well. Very few in the church stood against the atrocities, even when aware of what was happening in the concentration camps.

But there are exceptions. While it is depressing to see how the church did not stand against the horrors of Nazism, there are some bright spots that did so. While rare, those who took a nonresistant stand illustrate clearly how practical nonresistance is.

This brings us to perhaps the greatest strength and the core of nonresistance. It is not a theological ideal, a nice concept that might be of use in limited cases. Rather, it is immensely practical, an obtainable ideal. As we will see in this section, it simply works.

Malcom Gladwell, a secular journalist and bestselling author, wrote a fascinating book called David and Goliath. This volume covers those who are outside the norm, who do things that, on the surface, seem ridiculous and impractical. But as he points out, sometimes these very things are the solutions to some of the greatest social evils of our day.

Gladwell spends all of chapter eight contrasting two opposing view of social justice. He tells two true stories involving identical circumstances, but two very different responses. In the first case, Mike Reynolds loses his daughter to a brutal murder; he then becomes obsessed with justice and ensuring that criminals are punished as stiffly as possible. Through his tireless efforts, the “three strikes” law became widely accepted across America. This law is designed to heavily punish those who commit three infractions on of the law, with offenders serving a minimum of twenty years for the third crime.

By contrast, Gladwell tells the story of Wilma Derksen, a Mennonite lady from Canada. An almost identical situation occurred to her and her family. Her daughter was brutally murdered; but the response was polar opposite. Instead of demanding full justice, the Derksen’s took a different approach. They chose to forgive.

But the most incredible part of this story is the results. At first glance, it seems like the Three Strikes Law would be incredibly effective. For years it was held as a standard for criminal justice. But today, it is now recognized as actually being counterproductive and is no longer in use. It only adds to the endless cycle of hatred, violence, and crime.

The Derksens on the other hand, changed their world on a much deeper level. By living the nonresistant way, they give us a beacon of hope on the bleak horizon. Through not following the path that Reynolds took, they have proven that cycle of violence can have an end. But only through forgiveness and a willingness to put shoe leather to the concept of nonresistance. Gladwell, a secular journalist, uses this example of how counter intuitive solutions to social evils sometimes are. He ends his analysis by saying

 The difference between the two [cases] was that they felt differently about what could be accomplished through the use of power. The Derksens fought every instinct they had as parents to strike back because they were unsure of what that could accomplish. [Reynolds] employs the full power of the state in his grief and ends up plunging his government into a fruitless and costly experiment. [The Derksens] walk away from the promise of power [and] find the strength to forgive—and saves her friendship, her marriage, and her sanity. The world is upside down (Gladwell 253-254, 262).

Will We Learn from History?

The removal of nonresistance and the two kingdoms has had far reaching effects that extend beyond just the Protestant world. The doctrine of nonresistance, as we have seen, includes so much more than not joining the military; it is a lifestyle that should (and must) be lived every day and is closely tied into the Kingdom way of life.

As we have seen, the lack of nonresistance and belief in the two kingdoms has plagued the church at many points in history, including the Mennonites. This is both recently and graphically seen in the case of Nazi Germany.

But we would be deceiving ourselves if we believed that the church does not struggle with these same issues today. Though clearly it is not as vividly evident as the Mennonite Nazis, the church has found more subtle ways to not live out of a two kingdom mindset, and thus not practice nonresistance on a day-to-day, practical level. Though not nearly as dramatic as literally going to war, nonresistance can easily be avoided in major, but less public and visible, ways.

One of the worse cases of the lack of nonresistance in our church today is the removal of grace in Christian theology. When the average person on the street is asked what comes to mind when they think of Christianity, grace doesn’t make the list. We have become characterized more by the things that we stand against then the positive things we stand for.

God has literally extended an infinite amount of grace to this world. Jesus was characterized not only by his preaching of truth, but also of grace (John 1:42).

Grace is also the defining factor of Christianity. The story is told of a group of Oxford professors discussing what makes Christianity different from the other religions in the world. However, they were having a difficult time determining what is main separating factor. C. S. Lewis happened to walk into the discussion and they asked his opinion. “That’s easy,” he replied. “Grace” (Yancy 45).

This is the single greatest difference between Christianity and the other religions of the world. No other religious system today teaches unconditional grace (and therefore total redemption) from sin. Many religions and myths tell stories of a god who came and died, but none would believe that salvation is a free gift from God to man. All, in some form or another, would teach that salvation must be earned through various means. For example, Islam would claim to please Allah all must follow the Five Pillars of Islam; in Buddhism one must follow the eight-fold path to obtain Nirvana; etc. 

In a world that is darkened by unrealistic religious expectations, Christ shines all the brighter with the good news of the Cross and Resurrection. This is the cornerstone of Christianity; without grace the Church could not exist; the entire theme of the Bible is of the redemption of the ‘lost cause’ of humanity.

We as Christians can have the tendency to point out errors and enforce rules but not give grace. Most non-Christians can easily identify the various “hot topics” that Christians stand against; most cannot point out the positive things that we stand for. This is particularly the case when it comes to the doctrine of nonresistance. It is almost exclusively defined by what it stands against (war) rather than by what it stands for (peace and grace). At we have seen, the church did not hold to these standards, and has paid the price. The question before the church of my generation is, will we do any better?

What Anabaptists Face Today

History does indeed repeat itself, and though each generation faces unique circumstances we seem to encounter the same issues our parents faced.

Currently, the Anabaptist church, particularity in America, is having to deal with many of the same ideologies that the church in Germany wrestled with during Hitler’s time. As covered above, Hitler spoke to the “common man”, the farmers and middle class. He promised to restore the nation to its previous levels of peace and prosperity. The Nazi party pushed for aggressive loyalty to local businesses, insisting on only buying from other Germans and isolating other ethnic groups. The Mennonite church bought into this thinking, thereby becoming nationalistic in its thinking and actions. The results were absolutely devastating to the church, and has left a black stain our peaceful heritage that refuses to disappear no matter how much we ignore it.

This should sound familiar. America is going through the same thought process that Germany did 80 years previous. Our new president, Donald Trump, understood what the common man wanted and in response won perhaps the most surprising election in recent history. His promising of “making America great again”, his insistence of only supporting American based companies, and his strong policies against foreigners are all familiar to the time of Nazi Germany.

And now the church is faced with a decision. Do we support our new president in these actions? Admittedly his policies appeal to the conservative groups. We want to see strong values returned to our country. We want to see America a place where Christianity holds the respect it once had. On the one hand, we have what seems reasonable and maybe the first chance in decades to really make a nationwide change to our country. But on the other hand is Jesus, with his radical, no-exception teaching on what it means to live for another Kingdom.

The church in Nazi Germany did not pass the test. They were swept into the nationalist fervor, and when they realized their mistake it was too late. The church failed.

The church failed its neighbors. It failed its commitment to live for something more. And above all, the church failed Christ. Looking back, it is easy to see how this was all a mistake. But at the time even the “very elect were deceived” (Matthew 24:24). And we still bare the scares.

But the story does not end there. Our world is experiencing the greatest humanitarian crisis in modern history, surpassing that even of World War II. This is the devastation that has been sweeping across the Middle East as a result of terrorist groups such as ISIS, the Taliban, and Al-Qaeda. All this tries into the current situation of our world. Because of the almost unbelievable scale of the conflict across over half of the 22 countries in the Middle East, a global shift is happening. The world was not and is not ready for this crisis, and many countries are responding in very different ways.

This ties back in to the current state in America. No longer is America a safe haven to those from war-torn areas. This brings the situation full circle when compared to Hitler, who insisted on only taking care of “the Motherland.” This is exactly the mindset of our current presidential administration.

So now the church is faced with the exact decision it struggled with 80 years ago in Germany. Will we put our country first, or instead help those in need? The previous generation made their decision, and millions died in systematic genocide while the church looked on.

The current state of the world is poorly understood by our people. We don’t fully realize that what is happening is nearly as big as a world war. Perhaps this is our chance to respond where our grandparents failed.

I have the privilege of working with various Anabaptist nonprofit organizations responding to the needs in the Middle East. Words cannot express when has happened across Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, and many others. ISIS has determined to systematically exterminate the Yezidi people group, using tactics that makes Hitler and the Nazis look kind. Over half the population of Syria has been forced to flee (OCHA); 14 million in Yemen face extreme starvation because of the war (OCHA); Iraq has seen the complete destruction of countless towns and the brutal execution of thousands as well as the displacement of over 3 million civilians (OCHA).

Will We Repeat History?

In August 2016 I traveled to Sinjar, Iraq, where unspeakable horrors happened during the ISIS invasion of 2014. Though the city was liberated, much of it is destroyed, and ISIS controls land less than 2 miles away. At that time, only one small team of Anabaptists were actively helping the civilians who had survived. When I met some of the generals in the city, it was incredible to hear them enthusiastic insist that we “send more Mennonites!” One of them said “If everyone believed like what your book [the Bible] says, we wouldn’t have this war.” It has truly been amazing to see how Anabaptists have been able to have such an impact on Iraq. We have something to offer that the rest of the world does not: the way of peace and love, as presented by Christ. And the world notices that. Though the full story is still unfolding, it is abundantly clear that the crisis in the Middle East is the direct result of war. Man tried to “fix” the problems in the region with aggression, which fueled more conflict, which required more force, and thus we are stuck in an endless cycle of violence. The full picture is outlined in The ISIS Crisis (Dyer); ISIS is just the understandable result of previous violence. Even secular media admits that there is no end in sight for the conflict (Vox). What we need is a fundamental change in our approach to the problem, a change that only comes from a Christ-focused theology.

I am convinced that if the Mennonite church stands up and responds to this crisis, we could change an entire generation in the Middle East. In Nazi Germany we did nothing. What would the world look like if we had stood for peace in the previous generation? We will never know; we cannot change history. But we can change the now. And we can change what will be in the history books of tomorrow.

Conclusion

If the church continues on the course it is headed, we will be destined to repeat history. Christianity is becoming defined by what we stand against, rather than by what we stand for. The Mennonite people must seek out a complete theology of what it means to live out the two-kingdom doctrine as taught by Christ. This is an endeavor that must be accomplished on not only on a church by church basis, but also by individuals. If a doctrine is taught and not explained it will be lost by the next generation.

Imagine how powerful a testimony it would have been if the church would have stood up for what was right in Nazi Germany. As we saw above, incredible impact was often made by just a few individuals. Imagine how many lives could have been saved. How many more souls would be part of God’s Kingdom if the Mennonites would have stood up for the Jews, insisting that all men are equal to God.

One of the most depressing and horrifying experiences I had while researching this paper was making several trips to both the Holocaust Museum in Washington D.C. and the Yad Veshem (World Holocaust Remembrance Center in Jerusalem). To see what actually happened during World War II is a terrifying and sobering experience. Yet perhaps the saddest part of both those museums is the near non-existent response from the church. As covered above, every major church group either joined the Nazi party or did nothing to speak out against it.

The only ones represented in the museums that put up any kind of Christ-like response were those whom most of Christendom would deem as cults: the Jehovah’s Witnesses and Seventh-Day Adventists. These were the ones who stood up against the atrocities of the Nazi movement.

Where was the church when the world needed it the most? Apparently it was joining the Nazi Party, or was too fearful to stand up for what was right. Imagine how powerful a testimony it would be if the world saw how no one stood up for the evils of the last generation, except for a small, peace-loving people (Mennonites) who were simply living out what their Master called them to. That has the power to change people’s lives forever. That will make the world take notice. Not of us, but of our God who has commanded us to live a better way. A way that is the only answer to the chaos of this world.

Will the next generation look at us the same way? Will it see us as a people who stood up for what is evil, who gave hope and love when no one else would?

When your children read about what is happening today in the history books of tomorrow, will you be able to show them how you made a difference when the world faced its greatest crisis since the last world war?

One day, what we are doing will be in the history books. Perhaps there will be nothing to say. Or perhaps there will be a section on this little-known people called Mennonites, who believed in a better way and truly made an eternal difference across the global.

What legacy will you have?

Bibliography

Dyer, Charles, and Tobey, Mark. The ISIS Crisis. Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers, 2015.

Gingerich, John. The Ruth Reimer Yoder Story. Unpublished manuscript, n/d. Copies available upon request.

Gladwell, Malcolm. David and Goliath. New York, NY: Little, Brown and Company, 2013.

Hartzler, J. Mennonites in the World War. Scotdale, PA: Mennonite Publishing House, 1922.

Hershberger, Guy. War, Peace, and Nonresistance. Scotdale, PA: Herald Press, 1944.

Horst, Smauel. Mennonites in the Confederacy. Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1967.

Jantzen, Mark. Mennonite German Soldiers. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2010.

Mar, Paul. Urban II, Speech at Council of Clement, 1095. Internet Medieval Source Book. https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/source/urban2-fulcher.html, 1996. Retrieved February 17, 2017.

Michaelson, Jay. “Was Obama Right about the Crusades and Islamic Extremism?” Washington Post, February 6, 2015. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/religion/was-obama-right-about-the-crusades-and-islamic-extremism-analysis/2015/02/06/3670628a-ae46-11e4-8876-460b1144cbc1_story.html on February 18, 2017.

OCHA. “Iraq.” 2017. Retrieved from www.unocha.org/iraq on March 12, 2017.

OCHA. “Syria.” 2017. Retrieved from www.unocha.org/syria on March 12, 2017.

OCHA. “Yemen.” 2017. Retrieved from www.unocha.org/yemen on March 12, 2017.

Rausch, David. The Church and the Holocaust. In Friedman, Saul (ed). Holocaust Literature: A Handbook of Critical, Historical, and Literary Writings. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1993.

Reed, Frank. Mennonites in America. Sharon Mennonite Bible Institute class, 4th term, 2014.

Regier, James Peter. “Mennonitische Vergangenheitsbewältigung: Prussian Mennonites, the Third Reich, and Coming to Terms with a Difficult Past.” Mennonite Life, vol. 59, no. 1, 2004. Retrieved from https://ml.bethelks.edu/issue/vol-59-no-1/article/mennonitische-vergangenheitsbewaltigung-prussian-m/ on February 18, 2017.

Rempel, Gerhard. “Mennonites and the Holocaust: From Collaboration to Perpetuation.” Mennonite Quarterly Review, Oct. 2010.

Roth, John. “Europeans Confront Hard Truths of Nazi Era.” Mennonite World Review, Oct. 12, 2015.

Russell, Stephen. Overcoming Evil God’s Way. Guys Mills, PA: Faith Builders Resource Group, 2008.

Schrag, Alyssa. “Peace or Persecution: Mennonite Involvement in the Holocaust”. Mennonite Life, vol. 66, 2012. Retrieved from http://archive.bethelks.edu/ml/issue/vol-66/ on March 29, 2014.

Schrock, Clifford. “Mennonite Nazis?” The Monitor, vol. 31, no. 2, 2008.

Vox. “The Rise of ISIS, Explained in 6 Minutes.” Online film, 2015. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzmO6RWy1v8&t=33s . Retrieved on March 21, 2017.

Vox. “Syria’s War: Who is Fighting and Why.” Online film, 2015. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKb9GVU8bHE&t=3s. Retrieved on March 21, 2017.

Yoder, Elijah. Principles of Biblical Interpretation. Sharon Mennonite Bible Institute class. 4th term, 2014.

Yoder, Ruth. Personal communication. Interview recorded on February 25, 2015. Available upon request.

Yancey, Phillip. What's So Amazing About Grace? Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1997.

Weaver, Chester. “Mennonite Holocaust Perpetrators?” The FCM Informer, June/July issue, 2012.

Wells, Leon W. “The Righteous Gentiles.” In Friedman, Saul (ed). Holocaust Literature: A Handbook of Critical, Historical, and Literary Writings. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1993.

[1] Name withheld for privacy.

[2] It is worth noting that there were Anabaptist groups which did not practice nonresistance. None of them survived the Reformation (Russell, page 6).