By Lisa Schirch

In the early 1500s, Mennonites were fiery preachers who openly defied both political and religious powers in European city-states by rejecting infant baptism and arguing for the separation of church and state and adherence to nonviolence in all relationships. They were activists, publicly opposing the government’s control over religious matters and proclaiming a new vision for the Christian faith and church-state relations. They were anything but quiet and passive. Within a few decades, persecution and repression by governments and other religious groups wrought so many traumas on early Mennonites that they retreated from all open conflict with the state. They became the “quiet in the land,” and most remain so to this day.

“Chosen traumas” and “chosen glories” are significant defining events in history that get remembered and passed on through narratives from generation to generation, according to the conflict psychiatrist Vamik Volkan. Chosen traumas and glories become the heart and soul of the people, part of the very core of their identity. Mennonites preserved their stories of torture, imprisonment, and death for their beliefs during the Protestant Reformation in a book called The Martyrs Mirror. The book also contains images and stories of Mennonite chosen glories: martyrs giving up their lives, loving their enemies, and taking great risks to practice their faith. These stories and wood-engraved pictures are carved into the theological imagination and core identity of many Mennonites.

These chosen traumas and glories continue to shape Mennonite theology and peace-building practice 500 years later. Trauma expert Carolyn Yoder writes that the collective historic trauma experienced by Mennonites is reflected in the retreat from state and public life, and a focus on an inner life, individual salvation, and community harmony. Mennonites continued to set themselves apart from secular society and its focus on consumerism, through a lifestyle commitment to “simple living.” Mennonites carried their

chosen traumas and glories with them into the New World. Safe from religious persecution, Mennonites set up their own communities and prospered. Now, within the Mennonite Church there is a wide diversity of religious practice, from those who do not own cars or use electricity to progressive members who can be de-scribed as mainstream Americans.

Many Mennonites here in the United States still follow a “two kingdom” theology, which dichotomizes the state kingdom and the “kingdom of believers.” In North America, Mennonite pacifism and a theology of nonresistance has often been interpreted as “passive-ism,” or being “the quiet in the land.” Today, there are increasing contradictions between Mennonite peace theology and progressive North American Mennonite lifestyles.

Progressive Mennonites in the pews pray and sing songs about peace and ending the war in Iraq. Yet many of these Mennonites seem to have all but abandoned the historic commitment to simple living and have instead embraced mainstream consumerism. This creates a tension with the theological belief in separation from the state, as the consumer-based lifestyle is supported by a variety of public policies governing trade relations with other countries supplying cheap goods and by military policies defending United States economic interests abroad.

Many Mennonites might be more like ostriches with heads in the sand, or chickens in a well-guarded cage, than peace-loving doves. The silence of the quiet in the land now may have more to do with the economic gain some Mennonites reap from current public policies. While many Mennonites articulate a belief in pacifism that rejects violence, progressive North American Mennonites have a more difficult time discussing the contradictions of how they benefit from cheap oil and other foreign resources, yet reject the wars that, at least in part, help to defend their access to and freedom to engage in a consumer-based lifestyle.

Mennonite efforts at building peace in the world similarly illustrate contradictions that grow out of the same dynamic mix of historic trauma, two-kingdom theology, and isolation from the state. While Mennonites have a small staff working in Washington, D.C., on policy issues, the vast majority of Mennonite peace efforts are aimed at the community level through economic development, providing education and health care, leadership training, and reconciliation efforts. Mennonite peace-building efforts in community development, reconciliation, dialogue, and victim-offender mediation began as theological experiments in putting faith into practice. Mennonites have a history of bringing Christians and Muslims, Tutsis and Hutus, and countless other groups together to find creative ways out of their conflicts. These grassroots efforts around the world have made a significant impact, resulting in widespread institutionalization of peace-building organizations and academic programs.

Peace building requires efforts at all levels of society and in all sectors of society to prevent, reduce, and transform all forms of violence. At its heart, peace building is about building relationships across the lines of conflict. Yet Mennonite peace building has avoided building relationships with state or military actors, and some exhibit a profound skepticism that trans-formation of the state is possible. While encouraging groups in conflict to dialogue with each other and transform their relationship, Mennonites have not practiced this discipline with their historic enemy, the state. There is continuing reluctance within the Mennonite community to influence the state, particularly the U.S. government and military. One colleague notes that U.S. Mennonites embrace a theology of despair when it comes to contemplating how they can influence U.S. foreign policy. Mennonites in the southern hemispheres challenge U.S. Mennonites, claiming this despair is a luxury in a world where impoverished people find ways of hoping and working for social and political change.