“Be angry and sin not,” Paul advises the church at Ephesus in Ephesians 4:26.  Anger itself is not presented as a sin.  Paul reminds us in this passage that the emotion of anger increases the potential for a person to do harm to others.  As we have all likely seen, felt, or experienced, the angrier a person is, the more prone they are to say or do things that will do harm.  Few things are more frightening than to be near an enraged person with their eyes bulging, veins popping, arms waving, fists clinched, fingers pointing, and screaming.  In such a state, it is just a small step away from the person hitting, choking, pulling hair, even using a gun to shoot someone – behavior that in a calm state would likely never occur.

The same caution applies to the emotion of fear.  Fear is a useful emotion that emerges when we feel threatened.  It can keep us from stepping too close to the edge of a cliff or walking into a dark place that may be dangerous.  But like anger, fear has the potential to do harm to others as we try to eliminate the source of the fear.  And like anger, the more intense the sense of threat, the stronger the reaction, and thus, the greater the potential to do harm to others in response.

We live in a world with a heightened sense of fear, especially acts of terror by “radical Islamic Jihadists” or their sympathizers who have been responsible for killing many innocent victims around the world.  For many of us, the fear began with the successful attack on the World Trade Center, one of those flashbulb memories in which time is frozen as we watched in horror as the two 100 story skyscrapers collapsed, killing nearly 3,000 innocent people going about their daily activities.

The terrorists have succeeded in what appears to be one of their primary goals – to create a culture of fear through mean-spirited intimidation.  We are reminded daily of threats to our well-being as we go through metal detectors, see security cameras, and watch the news.  President Trump masterfully capitalized on our sense of fear with such skill that it helped him win the election.

It is imperative that we reflect on Paul’s warning about anger as we respond individually and corporately to the widespread sense of threat that has engulfed the United States, indeed much of the world.  This is particularly true of how we respond to Muslims and Muslim majority countries whom some depict, using alarmist rhetoric, as prevalent danger to our well-being, even more dangerous than we may know.

Avoiding Naivety

My comments this morning are not intended to minimize the pain and suffering that the terrorists have caused.  There is no doubt that individuals who identify as Muslim are responsible for horrific acts of terror.  For seven weeks after the successful attack of the World Trade Center, I helped organize 7 groups of students over a seven week period of time to assist in the recovery work in New York City.  I worked at ground zero for several of those weeks and saw first-hand the pile of rubble from the collapse that killed so many people.  There is no doubt that those who wanted to cause pain and anguish succeeded in doing so.  I sat in the foot of the rubble where human remains were still being found, perplexed.  How do we stop the evil intentions of those who want to harm others?  And how do we do so in a way that the response itself does not harm those we fear. Nagasaki, Hiroshima, and the incessant bombing of Laos and Cambodia came to mind as I sat there watching a long line of trucks take debris away.

Why Do They Hate Us So?

My daughter currently lives in Kuwait, a Muslim country.  She works as a school counselor in a middle school.  One day, a young 15 year old Muslim Kuwaiti student, asked her, “Mame, why do Americans hate us so? Do they think we are all terrorists?”

This morning I want to think for a few minutes about a very painful time in our history as Anabaptists when we were the ones hunted down, arrested, imprisoned, tortured and executed, where we were the refugees moving from country to country, sometimes rejected as they searched for a place to live.  Menno Simons, our namesake, was an exception during those days, he died of natural causes.  Most of the leaders and many others were arrested, tortured and executed simply for being Anabaptist.

The stories of the suffering of the Anabaptists are almost too painful to tell – the drowning of Conrad Grebel, Felix Mantz and Georg Blaurock in the Lamat River, the torture of Michael Sattler with hot tongs after being dragged behind a cart, and then burned at the stake and his wife Margarita being shown mercy by simply being drowned.  There is the heart-warming and tragic story of Dirk Willems who successfully crossed a frozen river to escape capture.  His purser was not so lucky and fell into the river when the ice broke.  Willems returned to help his pursuer out of the ice only to be captured, tortured and executed.  While Menno died of natural causes, he was a fugitive for 25 years, moving from house to house and from country to country with his family to avoid capture and execution.

We could, and should, ask the same questions the Kuwaiti child asked my daughter – why did they hate us so?  Did they think all Anabaptists were terrorists?  From our perspective, Menno and his followers were no threat.  They were pacifists who decried the use of the sword.  Menno himself wrote at least four letters to the authorities pleading for the massacres to stop.  Menno tried to assure the leaders that he and his followers were not a danger to the government or to society.  His pleas went unheeded and the hunting, imprisonment, torture, and executions continued for many years.

Anabaptist Terrorists

Why did they fear our ancestors so?  What did our ancestors do that caused such fear and fierce retribution?

When we look back in history as Mennonite Anabaptists, we focus mostly on those we see as heroes, god-fearing, peace-loving people , dedicated followers of Christ, harmless to society, not worthy of the pain, suffering and death they experienced.  We feel sorry but proud that they remained faithful even while being imprisoned, tortured, executed, and driven from their homes because of their religious beliefs.

The fact is that there were also radical Anabaptists during that time who were terrorists in the worst sense of the word. Their actions helped give Anabaptism a bad name and caused fear throughout Europe that led to the intense persecution.   Three men in particular were infamous during the early Anabaptist years.  They are names not familiar to us:  Bernard Rothman, Jan Mattias, and Jan of Leyden.  Much as ISIS has been attempting to develop an Islamic state, referred to as a caliphate, Rothman, Mattias, and Leyden became radicalized Anabaptists who were committed to developing a New Jerusalem using force with the German city of Munster as the chosen place to begin their new state.

Just a few dates to put the situation in a historical context.  The Anabaptist movement began in the early 1500s just a couple decades after Columbus had made his discovery of a new world.  The world order was beginning to change and Europe was a very unstable place.  The feudal society was falling apart and poverty was widespread.  The Catholic church, which that had been the dominant institution in Europe for over 1000 years was corrupt and in decline.  Martin Luther publicly challenged the Catholic church in 1517 in what we now call the Protestant Reformation, a protest against the Catholic church.  The Anabaptist Reformation began a few years later in 1523 by individuals who believed Martin Luther was on the right track but had not gone far enough.  Meanwhile, the simmering discontent of peasants began to erupt in 1524-25, somewhat like the 1% movement here in the US a few years ago.  The protests culminated in what is called the Peasants Revolt in which armed peasants had an uprising and demanded change.  100,000 peasants were massacred by the government forces who were determined to stop the protests.  In 1527, Rome – which had been the political powerhouse for centuries -was sacked by emperor Charles V creating a scramble for political power.  It was in 1527 that Charles V also outlawed the Anabaptist movement and ordered that all Anabaptists be exterminated.

Menno Simons did not join the Anabaptist movement until 1536, 13 years after it began.  By the time Menno joined the Anabaptists, the perceived threat of the Anabaptist movement was quite high.

The Rise and Fall of the Anabaptist Kingdom of Munster[1]

I do not have time this morning to tell the full story of the rise and fall of the kingdom of Munster and radicalized Anabaptists.  The city of Munster in northern Germany was selected by radicalized Anabaptist leaders as the location to build their Anabaptist state.  Thousands of individuals sympathetic to the Anabaptists flocked to the city to join the movement.  Munster had been an independent and diverse city in which Catholics, Protestants, and Anabaptists lived together in cooperation.  In 1533 the Anabaptist leaders consolidated their power and drove out the Protestants and Catholics and made it an Anabaptist controlled city.  Unlike the peaceful Anabaptists who had started the movement, these men opted to use violence and terror to achieve their goals of establishing an Anabaptist state.  A few examples of their brutality will make the point.

At first the leaders used harsh forms of intimidation and harassment to govern.  In 1533, when the radical Anabaptists gained power, they ruthlessly drove out the Catholics and Protestants in the middle of winter.  They evicted men, women, and children from the city in bitterly cold conditions without adequate clothing and absconding any food and valuables those fleeing tried to take.  Mothers were denied even rags to keep their babies warm.  Pregnant women were forced to leave and some had their babies in the streets.  Hundreds of peasants poured into the city to join the rebellion only to have their possessions confiscated.  The churches were plundered.

Jan of Leyden declared himself king in the line of David, wore a scarlet robe, and rode around the city in a white horse.  He ruled with an iron fist. Suspect Anabaptist converts were forced into the cathedral and forced to lay on the cold floor while they were harangued for their “uncertain devotion.”

Intimidation and harassment soon turned to imprisonment, torture, and execution.  Oppressive laws were put in place.  Crimes punishable by death included ‘blasphemy, attempts to flee, impurity, avarice, theft, fraud, lying and slander, idle conversation, disputes, anger, envy, and disobedience to the elders.”  To enforce the law, two two-hour court sessions were held daily and offenders were routinely imprisoned and executed for violations.  One blacksmith, for example, who complained about the new laws was executed in the public square for questioning the laws.  Following one revolt against the leaders, and there were several, those involved were forced to dig their graves and were summarily shot and buried.  A woman was executed for taking too much meat.  A young boy was executed when authorities thought he was trying to escape while herding cattle.

Polygamy was instituted by Jan of Leyden and all women older than 15 were required to be married.   The men could have as many wives as they wanted.  Women who refused marriage offers or conjugal rights could be beaten, imprisoned, and executed.  Some were.  One woman was executed for having two husbands.  Jan of Leyden himself who took on 16 wives, one of whom he executed in public in front of the other 15 wives for challenging him for his inhumane treatment of people.

Just as governments in our day have felt the need to step in and stop the development of ISIS, the government at that time believed it needed to regain control of the city of Munster.  The well-fortified city was attacked multiple times by the government during a year long siege from 1533 – 1534.  Much like Aleppo in Syria, the humanitarian conditions deteriorated steadily and thousands of people faced starvation.  When they fled the city, they were often killed by government forces waiting outside the walls.

In the end, after a year-long siege, the city was retaken by the government.  Jan of Leyden and the other leaders were tried, tortured with hot tongs applied to their bodies three times as required by the law, and then executed.  Their bodies were placed in iron cages hung from the church towers as an example to others of what would happen if they participated in radical efforts.  The cages still hang from the church towers in Munster.

Munster was not the only location where radicalized Anabaptists tried to establish earthly Kingdoms of God using force.  One noteworthy effort, albeit smaller and shorter in duration, involved 300 men who took over a Catholic monastery known as Oldeklooster.  What is particularly important about this situation is that Menno’s older brother, Pieter , who had been radicalized by militant Anabaptists, is  believed to be one the 300 men involved.  Menno’s brother was either killed in fighting or executed by authorities afterwards.  It is this incident that motivated Menno to finally leave the Catholic church and join the Anabaptists, who he saw as a sheep without a shepherd – no doubt having his brother in mind.

Responding to the Culture and Politics of Fear

So back to our questions; Why did they hate our ancestors so?  Did they think they were all terrorists?  I believe the authorities did not hate the Anabaptists, they feared them – just as we fear Muslims in our day for the changes they promote and the acts of terror caused by radicalized elements.  The theological issues were a factor in the Anabaptist persecution, but it was the radical Anabaptists that made the resistance so intense.  The authorities likely did not see all Anabaptists as terrorists but they could not distinguish between those who were a threat and those who were not, just as we cannot distinguish between the peaceful and radicalized Muslims.

The politics of fear in Europe led leaders to choose their own safety over possible harm to innocent Anabaptists.  This same fear is causing many Americans to support extreme efforts that will protect the US over the harm done to Muslims who may or may not be dangerous.

But did such vicious actions needed to be taken against the peaceful Anabaptist who posed no threat?  From our vantage point in history we can say with certainty – no, it was not necessary. After nearly 500 years, both the Catholics and the Lutherans, who were partly responsible for the persecution, agreed and apologized.  The authorities at that time saw it as necessary.

The same question needs to be asked about the intensity with which we are attempting to stop Muslim-affiliated terrorism.  As we attempt to reduce the threat we sense, are we doing harm to others?  Is it right to continue to hold prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, to use drones to track down and kill ISIS sympathetic individuals in our day even if innocent people are also killed?  Are doing harm to others as we put extreme vetting in place and ban immigration?  Is it right to use torture and to execute those we fear?

The justification that was used against our ancestors is the same justification now used against the Muslims – Sorry, since we can’t tell the difference, we need to make sure that we are protecting ourselves first, using all means possible.  In the heightened state of fear that existed then, like now, the authorities were more supportive of inflicting pain on innocent Anabaptists than to allow the movement to possibly grow.

So How Should We Respond?

It is important to know that while Menno and his followers would not take up arms against others, he soundly repudiated Jan of Leyden and the Munster rebellion and supported the government’s efforts to control those who were doing such evil deeds.  He called on the government, however, to use the least violent means possible when doing so and pleaded with them to relax the efforts against those who were not radicalized.

What is most telling about Menno Simons and his followers is the fearlessness they demonstrated in the midst of the culture of fear that existed.  This is not to say they were not concerned.  With fear and trembling Menno became an Anabaptist to help lead those seeking to follow Christ in the way of peace and away from the violence promoted by the radicalized Anabaptists.  In the face of imprisonment, torture, and death – the peaceful Anabaptists would not yield to fear though the potential for suffering was real and extreme.

Reasonable Precautions – So what are we to do with the Muslim-affiliated threat that exists, real and exaggerated?  It is appropriate to take reasonable steps in response to threatening situations.  Jesus was certainly born into a threatening situation with Herod’s command to kill all male infants under the age of 2.  Mary and Joseph simply went home using a different route.  There is no question that some Muslim-affiliated individuals are planning acts of terror.  We, like Menno, can support the government in taking necessary steps to keep people safe using the least lethal and oppressive means possible.

Golden Rule – As a people who have experienced the oppression and harm that can result from fear, we can reflect on and apply our own version of the golden rule.  We can “do unto others as we would have had them do unto us.”  We have the potential to be among those with the greatest empathy for and stand alongside the vast majority of Muslims, who despite being peaceful and positive people, get lumped together with radical Islamic Jihadists who choose violence as the means to some end.  We know how important it is to have a government that will differentiate between those who are violent and those who are non-violent.  We know how important is was for us to have governments who will provide a safe haven when people are forced out of their homes and homeland.

Reject Politics of Fear – We, like the peaceful Anabaptists, can also reject the politics of fear that is so easily tempts us to value our own safety and well-being as more important than that of those we fear.  Menno Simons became an Anabaptist knowing full well he would pay a huge price for it, even to the point of arrest, torture, and execution.  He rejected the fear and joined the Anabaptists anyway.  We can take inspiration and comfort by the example of overwhelming pain and suffering our ancestors experienced but held firm to their commitment to love their enemies and to suffer for righteousness sake.

Place Confidence in God – We embrace the advice of the prophet Isaiah in chapter 8, verse 12 who says, “Do not call conspiracy everything this people calls a conspiracy; do not fear what they fear, and do not dread it.” With the Psalmist in chapter 27, verse 3, we can say, “Though an army besiege me, my heart will not fear; though war break out against me, even then I will be confident.”

We can refuse to place our confidence in walls, vetting – extreme or otherwise, bans on immigration, increased intelligence and surveillance, the use of imprisonment, torture or executions to find and stop the acts of terror, the hopes that capturing and killing radical leaders will make us safer.  Rather, we can place our confidence in the words of Jesus to his frightened disciples in John 14:27 just before his arrest, torture, and crucifixion.  To this frightened group he said, “Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you.  I do not give to you as the world gives.  Do not let your hearts be troubled and do not be afraid.”

Walk into the Future with Resolve – Chapter 15 of John ends with these words of Jesus to his disciples, “Come now, let us leave.”  May we be among those who follow the way of Jesus in this day of fear.  May our light so shine before men that they may see our good works and give glory to the Father in Heaven.

[1] Much of the material is taken from Anthony Arthur’s book, “The Tailor Kind: The Rise and Fall of the Anabaptist Kingdom of Munster, At Martin’s Press, New York, (1999).