Humanity in the Midst of Inhumanity (Elizabeth Witmer, soph.)
I have grown up in an Anabaptist Mennonite home all my life. One of our core beliefs is being committed to peace and following the peaceful teachings of Jesus. There is no doubt that times have changed since the times of Jesus. I feel like there is not a day that goes by where I am not hearing about some sort of violent insurrection around the world or some hostile dispute that the United States is getting involved in. While I know the experiences of the early Christians were certainly not always pleasant, I have contemplated recently how we can promote a peaceful way in a world filled with terror and violence. Because the world has changed so much between Bible times and modern day, I sometimes wonder if what Jesus teaches about peace is even applicable to our lives today. Peace is something that, as humans, we would love to attain but is impossible in a place where terrorism reigns and violence is king. I think that is why I wanted to research the topic of peace because I longed to learn of peace in the midst of strife and examples of how people have avoided violence and turned to peace not only in our world today, but also in the past. I knew that I had a history of peacemaking in my family and church and wanted to understand what motivated these individuals to pursue peace. From researching this, I hope to better understand why and how others choose peace both in war and everyday life and how I can do my part to pursue peace in the modern world.
Religion, especially the beliefs of the traditional peace churches, is probably the most prominent reason for why people feel convicted to live peacefully. The sixth commandment in Exodus is “thou shall not murder” (NIV Teen Study Bible Ex. 20:13). Some versions of the Bible also use the word “kill,” but the use of the word “murder,” as in the statement above, conflicts some people because of the belief that justified killing, as in self defense or warfare, is not murder. Contrary to common belief, most members of peace churches believe that any kind of killing of a person in any circumstance is wrong (Meltzer 32). Another passage in the Bible advises “…do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also” (Matt. 5:39). The action of turning the other cheek, or not responding to an insult, can be seen as not defending one’s self, but in reality, turning the other cheek puts a person on equal footing with their insulter. If one turns the other cheek, it forces the attacker to slap the other person with the palm of their hand, which distinguishes equality, not subordination, as a backhanded slap would suggest (Thermostat). Not only does this action allow for someone to respond with nonresistance and approach the situation peacefully, but it provides an essence of dignity with the nonviolent action. Many would interpret this verse as meaning that evil cannot be repaid with evil, whether physically or verbally (Thermostat).
Matthew 5:44 says, “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.” It does not say to strike down the enemy and seek revenge, but to love and pray for them. This concept is extremely difficult to grasp in a world that views justice as getting vengeance and eliminating the enemy. Jesus’ crucifixion is the ultimate example of that kind of sacrifice. He died for the sins of the world, for the sins of the people who persecuted him and who shouted for him to be nailed to a tree (Mark 15:21). In showing that kind of love, he got rid of retributive justice by showing not only his followers, but the rest of the world, how a person in that sort of dire situation can still respond with peaceful, love-filled actions (Haile 103). The question is then raised of what right a person has to take the life of someone Jesus died for and how people can justify violence and killing when Jesus died to save (Thermostat). Jesus’ sacrifice teaches his followers not to kill in the name of Jesus, but to suffer in his name (Meltzer 35). The teachings of Jesus in the New Testament provide Christians with specific instructions about what to do when a conflict arises.
On the other side of the spectrum, political and economic reasons for peace also arise, but their beliefs are not as consistent. Political reasoning generally pertains to wars and whether or not they are necessary. It is not a matter of conscience, but whether or not, politically, that particular war is justified or even necessary. The very same people who may oppose one war may view the next war as completely justified and have no qualms with supporting it. Economically speaking, others object to war, specifically, because it ruins property (Meltzer 61). Religious reasons for pursuing peace are the most consistent and visible because while other reasons are related solely to war, those with religious convictions not only pursue peace in wartime, but in everyday life as well.
The early Christians were the first group of people to seek exemption from war and the preparation for war. From the times of the Apostles to AD 170, Christians were not a part of the standing armies and were allowed to forego participation in acts of violence, such as involvement in the army would require. Because Jesus' life and crucifixion took place early in that time, it is quite probable that it may have influenced the decision of the Christians to do so. These early followers of Christ did not receive much persecution because the Roman army had plenty of soldiers and therefore their objection to it did not make much of a difference (Meltzer 9). The case of Saint Maximilianus, one of the first conscientious objectors in history, is a bit different because of his family lineage, despite his religious beliefs. In AD 295, he was called to serve in the Roman army and because his father was a soldier, it was considered his duty. Maximilianus refused to fight saying, “I will not serve as a soldier of this world, for I am a soldier of Christ.” For putting into words what his conscience believed, he was beheaded (Meltzer 12). Shortly after Maximilianus was executed, another soldier, Martin of Tours, asked to be discharged from the army, believing that if one man would rather be killed than kill others, then there was no way he could conscientiously remain in the army. The outcome to his situation was quite different because although he was called a coward, he offered to face the enemy, alone and unarmed. When his commanding officer learned the opposing army desired peace, he gladly gave Martin of Tours the discharge he requested (Meltzer 12).
The allowance of Christians not to go to war changed when Constantine became emperor and made Christianity the official Roman religion in AD 313 (Meltzer 12). It appears that he established the belief that God and himself were very much the same and those in military service served to protect both of them. Saint Augustine is the creator of the just war theory the world hears so much about today. He believed that self defense was objectionable, but protection of the larger community was acceptable, if not expected (Meltzer 13). This belief is interesting, simply because the idea of self defense is more often debated than the idea of going to war. Presently, opting out of war is generally acceptable but not defending one's self and family can be viewed with degradation and dishonor.
Jumping ahead several centuries to Europe, those a part of peace churches, such as the Mennonites or Quakers, were often charged with the accusation of being “in league with the Devil” and attempting to incite rebellion against the government, which consisted of a relationship between the state and church, which they opposed (Meltzer 19). Many who migrated to the Western Hemisphere were members of peace sects who brought their beliefs to America. They were met with the same violent persecution in America as they experienced in Europe, especially when they refused to participate in the colonial wars, such as the French and Indian War and the American Revolution. During the American Revolution, they were especially persecuted because most colonists believed it was a fight against tyranny and was a justified war that everyone should support the cause of (Meltzer 43). The American Civil War, however, was much more serious than the previous wars. In 1863, the first national draft was passed that did not exempt those who conscientiously opposed violence. One year later, thankfully, the first alternative service law was passed. Those who did not want to go to war could either pay a fine, work in a hospital, or care for freedmen. There were approximately 1,500 conscientious objectors during the Civil War. While this was viewed with acceptance in the North, the Confederacy persecuted and tortured conscientious objectors because of their desperate need for soldiers (Meltzer 104). The torture techniques they practiced would make anyone rethink their decision, which many did, but those who truly believed that peace was the only way did not let that become a hindrance.
On April 2, 1917, the second federal draft in the history of America was instated. It was the start of World War I and peaceful opposition was not welcomed. The Espionage Act summed up the attitude directed towards those with peaceful motives. Not only did it attack those who spoke out against the draft, but it also allowed the government to edit out sections in publications that contradicted support for the war (Meltzer 144). Though the draft law did distinguish several groups, including the Mennonites and Quakers, as being peace sects and therefore excused them from having to join the army, the alternative did not please many of these individuals. Of the 56,000 approved conscientious objectors, nearly a fourth of them were forced into noncombat duty (Meltzer 151). Though they did not have to carry a gun and fight, the belief of most conscientious objectors was that even any kind involvement or preparation for war still contradicted their religious beliefs and was something they could not conscientiously do. Those who chose to listen to their consciences during that time period were given meaningless work and were blatantly harassed for their belief that peace triumphed over war.
Having somewhat learned their lesson during World War I, more readily accessible alternative service was available when World War II rolled around. Because many believed that this war, out of any, was the most justified to be fighting in, the government made sure that the work that the conscientious objectors were given actually benefitted the war effort and was of “national importance.” One of the largest organizations that provided alternative service was Civil Public Service (CPS) and existed for the people who declined noncombat duty (Meltzer 192). Around 12,000 of the approximate 60,000 conscientious objectors served in CPS and served in assignments involving nature control, infrastructure, and health care (Meltzer 194). Three out of every five Mennonites became conscientious objectors and during World War II, exactly 4,665 Mennonites were conscientious objectors (Jenner & Lofton 2). Many of these Mennonites were sent to work in mental institutions through CPS across the United States during the war. The conditions of these institutions were filthy and inhumane as patients were often locked in rooms, tied to chairs, stripped of their clothing, and beaten by attendants (Jenner & Lofton 3). It was an unendless cycle of abuse and hatred where more than once, an abusive attendant was killed by the patients that individual was mistreating. If a person, especially one in that sort of mental state, is treated this way, they respond with similar actions, only as a means to protect themselves against further abusive treatment. The conscientious objectors who came to work in these mental institutions came, not physically armed, but armed with the love of Christ. Instead of taking out their frustrations by harming others, they demonstrated their lives of peace by loving those who were unloved. One might be able to describe it as “[remaining] human in the midst of inhumanity” (Baker 251).
Conscientious objection tells of objection specifically to war on religious or moral grounds. For John Witmer, serving as a conscientious objector in the Mont Alto State Hospital in the years after the Korean War meant so much more than simply objecting to war. To him, it spoke of his lifestyle of peace and was something he had to do. He believed that teachings of Jesus taught him not to engage in war and told him to pursue resolution from a peaceful vantage point. “As conscientious objectors, we didn’t work to avoid war and conflict. We worked to peacefully resolve conflict when it arose,” he explained (Witmer). In the same time period, Don Leatherman served as an orderly in the General Rose Memorial Hospital. He too believed that the peace of Christ prohibited him from partaking in war, saying, “No matter the circumstance, I could never conscientiously kill someone” (Leatherman). In accordance with both men, Marvin Ruth put forth the question, “Can you imagine Jesus doing something like that?” That is the question that many ask themselves, in regards to not only whether or not they should participate in war, but how they can relate to others in a peaceful way in their daily interactions.
Living peacefully in everyday life can sometimes be simple, but in the case of Dirk Willems, it was a matter of life or death. In the 1500s, around 1,500 Anabaptists suffered and died for their beliefs (Graves). The most common belief they were persecuted for was the belief that baptism should be a conscious choice, not something done as an infant. Willems was imprisoned for being rebaptized as an adult in 1569 in his hometown of Asperen, Holland (Van Bragt 741). After his time spent starving in prison, he was able to flee by making of rope of cloth and escaping out the prison window (Graves). He fled over a frozen river, as it was wintertime, as a guard pursued him. Because he was so emaciated from the lack of food, Willems was able to make it across the river, but his pursuer fell through the ice, beginning to drown. Knowing he could escape if he kept going, Willems chose to turn back and rescued his pursuer from the water, saving his life (Van Bragt 741). The man was grateful to him and may have let him go, but the Burgomaster in authority over the guard made him think of his oath as an “officer of peace” (Graves). Willems was rearrested and on May 16, 1569, he was burned at the stake for being rebaptized, having secret church meetings in his house, and rebaptizing others (Van Bragt 742). A wind was blowing that day that blew the flames from his body, so his death was long and painful. When he cried out to God for strength, the guard in charge was sickened and ordered that they end his misery with a quick death. Dirk Willems died because he believed that when Jesus said “love your enemies,” he really meant it.
Ahmed Ali Haile was a native Somali Muslim by birth. When he became a Christian, he became an outcast in Somali society, but he felt confident God was calling him to be a peacemaker in Somalia. There were many students who studied with him who became Christians and several clan leaders threatened to kill Haile (Haile 77). Over a meal and tea they voiced their concerns. Another time, four men demanded to see Haile, one of the men having previously made death threats against him. This time as well, he invited them inside for a meal and tea, not knowing what they would do to him. The significance of something as seemingly pointless as those two meals was not lost on Haile as he realized that he was truly accepted into Somali society, even as a believer in Christ. Several years later in 1992, he was the target of a rocket that shot off his leg, simply because he was working at resolving interclan conflict and the civil unrest in Somalia (Haile 95). Because Ahmed Haile followed God’s calling to peacemake in Somalia, he received countless death threats, lost his leg in a rocket attack, and constantly feared for his life. He believed that following the ways of Jesus was worth all the horrible things that happened to him and was willing to risk his life for a calling.
A peaceful lifestyle does not always mean life or death and can be as simple as listening to others and offering to help them (Leatherman and Witmer). John Witmer explains that to keep peace, a person has to understand where other people are coming from and take the time to listen to them. “I also try to be careful what I say and how I say it,” Witmer said. It seems that the key to living peacefully is forming relationships with others where a person is open to hearing about their lives. Don Leatherman says that keeping out of business that is not his and not intentionally provoking others are just several ways that he keeps peace in his life. “I think peacemaking is just that: living at peace with others, including those who are at odds with each other,” he added (Leatherman). Leatherman told a story of something that happened to him after the Game Commission gave him permission to hunt at night and several of his neighbors disagreed with the allowance: “I went outside the one day and I found that my fences had been cut. I called the Game Warden to just report it, not tell on anyone. He urged me to call the state police and even though I had a pretty good idea of who did it, I decided not to. Instead, I replanted my fields with wheat, not the alfalfa that the deer like, and in doing so, I got rid of the deer that were the source of our conflict” (Leatherman). In that situation, resolution was attained because of one man’s willingness to compromise and seek peace in a difficult situation. Sometimes, however, as Marvin Ruth pointed out, it is not always in the power of the person to cultivate peaceful relations with everyone. “The Bible says, ‘If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone.’ I try to keep peace with everyone, but sometimes I have done all I can to develop a peaceful relationship with someone and then it’s up to them,” Ruth noted. Acts of peace in daily life can be sacrificial, as in the cases of Dirk Willems and Ahmed Haile, or it can be as simple as forming relationships with others and being their friend.
I think the largest reward from researching this topic is hearing stories. If I had never decided to research this topic, I may never have learned of the experiences of others or come to respect them as I have. With this information, I have come to realize that no matter how hard the circumstances have been, there have always been people who have boldly stood up for their beliefs, unwilling to back down for the sake of fear or humiliation. The experiences of the people I have heard and read about are a testimony to me, in that even though in a world where peace seems impossible, peace is still present. I hope to inform more people about the varied options for resolution in the world other than violence and warfare. Sometimes I think when we lose our hope, it is easier to take the easy route and not think of the consequences of our decision until we’re in too deep. I’m not saying that I hope to eliminate warfare completely, as that is impossible, but I hope to cultivate peace around the world, starting with me. I hope to further investigate how I can promote peace as an individual. I would like to dedicate this paper to my grandpas, Don Leatherman and John Witmer, and dear friend, Marvin Ruth. Thank you all for being open to share your experiences with me and giving me clear pictures of who some peacemakers in the world are!
Works Cited
Baker, Nicholson. The Way the World Works. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2012. Print.
Graves, David. “Dirk Willems Burned After Rescuing Pursuer.” Christianity.com. Christianity.com, 2012. Web. 4 Dec. 2012. <http://www.christianity.com/church/church- history/timeline/1501-1600/dirk-willem-burned-after-rescuing-pursuer-11630015.html>.
Haile, Ahmed Ali. Teatime in Mogadishu. Virginia: Herald Press, 2011. Print.
Jenner, Andrew, and Bonnie Price Lofton. “Striving for Love Amid Filth and Abuse.” Crossroads Fall/Winter/Spring 2011-12: 2-11. Print.
Leatherman, Don. Personal interview. 1 Dec. 2012.
Meltzer, Milton. Ain’t Gonna Study War No More. New York: Random House, 2002. Print.
NIV Teen Study Bible. Michigan: Zondervan, 2008. Print.
Ruth, Marvin. Personal interview. 4 Dec. 2012.
Thermostat. Dir. Titus Peachey. Mennonite Central Committee, 2002. Film.
Van Bragt, Thieleman. The Martyr’s Mirror. Pennsylvania: Herald Press, 1938. Print.
Witmer, John. Personal interview. 1 Dec. 2012.
Religion, especially the beliefs of the traditional peace churches, is probably the most prominent reason for why people feel convicted to live peacefully. The sixth commandment in Exodus is “thou shall not murder” (NIV Teen Study Bible Ex. 20:13). Some versions of the Bible also use the word “kill,” but the use of the word “murder,” as in the statement above, conflicts some people because of the belief that justified killing, as in self defense or warfare, is not murder. Contrary to common belief, most members of peace churches believe that any kind of killing of a person in any circumstance is wrong (Meltzer 32). Another passage in the Bible advises “…do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also” (Matt. 5:39). The action of turning the other cheek, or not responding to an insult, can be seen as not defending one’s self, but in reality, turning the other cheek puts a person on equal footing with their insulter. If one turns the other cheek, it forces the attacker to slap the other person with the palm of their hand, which distinguishes equality, not subordination, as a backhanded slap would suggest (Thermostat). Not only does this action allow for someone to respond with nonresistance and approach the situation peacefully, but it provides an essence of dignity with the nonviolent action. Many would interpret this verse as meaning that evil cannot be repaid with evil, whether physically or verbally (Thermostat).
Matthew 5:44 says, “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.” It does not say to strike down the enemy and seek revenge, but to love and pray for them. This concept is extremely difficult to grasp in a world that views justice as getting vengeance and eliminating the enemy. Jesus’ crucifixion is the ultimate example of that kind of sacrifice. He died for the sins of the world, for the sins of the people who persecuted him and who shouted for him to be nailed to a tree (Mark 15:21). In showing that kind of love, he got rid of retributive justice by showing not only his followers, but the rest of the world, how a person in that sort of dire situation can still respond with peaceful, love-filled actions (Haile 103). The question is then raised of what right a person has to take the life of someone Jesus died for and how people can justify violence and killing when Jesus died to save (Thermostat). Jesus’ sacrifice teaches his followers not to kill in the name of Jesus, but to suffer in his name (Meltzer 35). The teachings of Jesus in the New Testament provide Christians with specific instructions about what to do when a conflict arises.
On the other side of the spectrum, political and economic reasons for peace also arise, but their beliefs are not as consistent. Political reasoning generally pertains to wars and whether or not they are necessary. It is not a matter of conscience, but whether or not, politically, that particular war is justified or even necessary. The very same people who may oppose one war may view the next war as completely justified and have no qualms with supporting it. Economically speaking, others object to war, specifically, because it ruins property (Meltzer 61). Religious reasons for pursuing peace are the most consistent and visible because while other reasons are related solely to war, those with religious convictions not only pursue peace in wartime, but in everyday life as well.
The early Christians were the first group of people to seek exemption from war and the preparation for war. From the times of the Apostles to AD 170, Christians were not a part of the standing armies and were allowed to forego participation in acts of violence, such as involvement in the army would require. Because Jesus' life and crucifixion took place early in that time, it is quite probable that it may have influenced the decision of the Christians to do so. These early followers of Christ did not receive much persecution because the Roman army had plenty of soldiers and therefore their objection to it did not make much of a difference (Meltzer 9). The case of Saint Maximilianus, one of the first conscientious objectors in history, is a bit different because of his family lineage, despite his religious beliefs. In AD 295, he was called to serve in the Roman army and because his father was a soldier, it was considered his duty. Maximilianus refused to fight saying, “I will not serve as a soldier of this world, for I am a soldier of Christ.” For putting into words what his conscience believed, he was beheaded (Meltzer 12). Shortly after Maximilianus was executed, another soldier, Martin of Tours, asked to be discharged from the army, believing that if one man would rather be killed than kill others, then there was no way he could conscientiously remain in the army. The outcome to his situation was quite different because although he was called a coward, he offered to face the enemy, alone and unarmed. When his commanding officer learned the opposing army desired peace, he gladly gave Martin of Tours the discharge he requested (Meltzer 12).
The allowance of Christians not to go to war changed when Constantine became emperor and made Christianity the official Roman religion in AD 313 (Meltzer 12). It appears that he established the belief that God and himself were very much the same and those in military service served to protect both of them. Saint Augustine is the creator of the just war theory the world hears so much about today. He believed that self defense was objectionable, but protection of the larger community was acceptable, if not expected (Meltzer 13). This belief is interesting, simply because the idea of self defense is more often debated than the idea of going to war. Presently, opting out of war is generally acceptable but not defending one's self and family can be viewed with degradation and dishonor.
Jumping ahead several centuries to Europe, those a part of peace churches, such as the Mennonites or Quakers, were often charged with the accusation of being “in league with the Devil” and attempting to incite rebellion against the government, which consisted of a relationship between the state and church, which they opposed (Meltzer 19). Many who migrated to the Western Hemisphere were members of peace sects who brought their beliefs to America. They were met with the same violent persecution in America as they experienced in Europe, especially when they refused to participate in the colonial wars, such as the French and Indian War and the American Revolution. During the American Revolution, they were especially persecuted because most colonists believed it was a fight against tyranny and was a justified war that everyone should support the cause of (Meltzer 43). The American Civil War, however, was much more serious than the previous wars. In 1863, the first national draft was passed that did not exempt those who conscientiously opposed violence. One year later, thankfully, the first alternative service law was passed. Those who did not want to go to war could either pay a fine, work in a hospital, or care for freedmen. There were approximately 1,500 conscientious objectors during the Civil War. While this was viewed with acceptance in the North, the Confederacy persecuted and tortured conscientious objectors because of their desperate need for soldiers (Meltzer 104). The torture techniques they practiced would make anyone rethink their decision, which many did, but those who truly believed that peace was the only way did not let that become a hindrance.
On April 2, 1917, the second federal draft in the history of America was instated. It was the start of World War I and peaceful opposition was not welcomed. The Espionage Act summed up the attitude directed towards those with peaceful motives. Not only did it attack those who spoke out against the draft, but it also allowed the government to edit out sections in publications that contradicted support for the war (Meltzer 144). Though the draft law did distinguish several groups, including the Mennonites and Quakers, as being peace sects and therefore excused them from having to join the army, the alternative did not please many of these individuals. Of the 56,000 approved conscientious objectors, nearly a fourth of them were forced into noncombat duty (Meltzer 151). Though they did not have to carry a gun and fight, the belief of most conscientious objectors was that even any kind involvement or preparation for war still contradicted their religious beliefs and was something they could not conscientiously do. Those who chose to listen to their consciences during that time period were given meaningless work and were blatantly harassed for their belief that peace triumphed over war.
Having somewhat learned their lesson during World War I, more readily accessible alternative service was available when World War II rolled around. Because many believed that this war, out of any, was the most justified to be fighting in, the government made sure that the work that the conscientious objectors were given actually benefitted the war effort and was of “national importance.” One of the largest organizations that provided alternative service was Civil Public Service (CPS) and existed for the people who declined noncombat duty (Meltzer 192). Around 12,000 of the approximate 60,000 conscientious objectors served in CPS and served in assignments involving nature control, infrastructure, and health care (Meltzer 194). Three out of every five Mennonites became conscientious objectors and during World War II, exactly 4,665 Mennonites were conscientious objectors (Jenner & Lofton 2). Many of these Mennonites were sent to work in mental institutions through CPS across the United States during the war. The conditions of these institutions were filthy and inhumane as patients were often locked in rooms, tied to chairs, stripped of their clothing, and beaten by attendants (Jenner & Lofton 3). It was an unendless cycle of abuse and hatred where more than once, an abusive attendant was killed by the patients that individual was mistreating. If a person, especially one in that sort of mental state, is treated this way, they respond with similar actions, only as a means to protect themselves against further abusive treatment. The conscientious objectors who came to work in these mental institutions came, not physically armed, but armed with the love of Christ. Instead of taking out their frustrations by harming others, they demonstrated their lives of peace by loving those who were unloved. One might be able to describe it as “[remaining] human in the midst of inhumanity” (Baker 251).
Conscientious objection tells of objection specifically to war on religious or moral grounds. For John Witmer, serving as a conscientious objector in the Mont Alto State Hospital in the years after the Korean War meant so much more than simply objecting to war. To him, it spoke of his lifestyle of peace and was something he had to do. He believed that teachings of Jesus taught him not to engage in war and told him to pursue resolution from a peaceful vantage point. “As conscientious objectors, we didn’t work to avoid war and conflict. We worked to peacefully resolve conflict when it arose,” he explained (Witmer). In the same time period, Don Leatherman served as an orderly in the General Rose Memorial Hospital. He too believed that the peace of Christ prohibited him from partaking in war, saying, “No matter the circumstance, I could never conscientiously kill someone” (Leatherman). In accordance with both men, Marvin Ruth put forth the question, “Can you imagine Jesus doing something like that?” That is the question that many ask themselves, in regards to not only whether or not they should participate in war, but how they can relate to others in a peaceful way in their daily interactions.
Living peacefully in everyday life can sometimes be simple, but in the case of Dirk Willems, it was a matter of life or death. In the 1500s, around 1,500 Anabaptists suffered and died for their beliefs (Graves). The most common belief they were persecuted for was the belief that baptism should be a conscious choice, not something done as an infant. Willems was imprisoned for being rebaptized as an adult in 1569 in his hometown of Asperen, Holland (Van Bragt 741). After his time spent starving in prison, he was able to flee by making of rope of cloth and escaping out the prison window (Graves). He fled over a frozen river, as it was wintertime, as a guard pursued him. Because he was so emaciated from the lack of food, Willems was able to make it across the river, but his pursuer fell through the ice, beginning to drown. Knowing he could escape if he kept going, Willems chose to turn back and rescued his pursuer from the water, saving his life (Van Bragt 741). The man was grateful to him and may have let him go, but the Burgomaster in authority over the guard made him think of his oath as an “officer of peace” (Graves). Willems was rearrested and on May 16, 1569, he was burned at the stake for being rebaptized, having secret church meetings in his house, and rebaptizing others (Van Bragt 742). A wind was blowing that day that blew the flames from his body, so his death was long and painful. When he cried out to God for strength, the guard in charge was sickened and ordered that they end his misery with a quick death. Dirk Willems died because he believed that when Jesus said “love your enemies,” he really meant it.
Ahmed Ali Haile was a native Somali Muslim by birth. When he became a Christian, he became an outcast in Somali society, but he felt confident God was calling him to be a peacemaker in Somalia. There were many students who studied with him who became Christians and several clan leaders threatened to kill Haile (Haile 77). Over a meal and tea they voiced their concerns. Another time, four men demanded to see Haile, one of the men having previously made death threats against him. This time as well, he invited them inside for a meal and tea, not knowing what they would do to him. The significance of something as seemingly pointless as those two meals was not lost on Haile as he realized that he was truly accepted into Somali society, even as a believer in Christ. Several years later in 1992, he was the target of a rocket that shot off his leg, simply because he was working at resolving interclan conflict and the civil unrest in Somalia (Haile 95). Because Ahmed Haile followed God’s calling to peacemake in Somalia, he received countless death threats, lost his leg in a rocket attack, and constantly feared for his life. He believed that following the ways of Jesus was worth all the horrible things that happened to him and was willing to risk his life for a calling.
A peaceful lifestyle does not always mean life or death and can be as simple as listening to others and offering to help them (Leatherman and Witmer). John Witmer explains that to keep peace, a person has to understand where other people are coming from and take the time to listen to them. “I also try to be careful what I say and how I say it,” Witmer said. It seems that the key to living peacefully is forming relationships with others where a person is open to hearing about their lives. Don Leatherman says that keeping out of business that is not his and not intentionally provoking others are just several ways that he keeps peace in his life. “I think peacemaking is just that: living at peace with others, including those who are at odds with each other,” he added (Leatherman). Leatherman told a story of something that happened to him after the Game Commission gave him permission to hunt at night and several of his neighbors disagreed with the allowance: “I went outside the one day and I found that my fences had been cut. I called the Game Warden to just report it, not tell on anyone. He urged me to call the state police and even though I had a pretty good idea of who did it, I decided not to. Instead, I replanted my fields with wheat, not the alfalfa that the deer like, and in doing so, I got rid of the deer that were the source of our conflict” (Leatherman). In that situation, resolution was attained because of one man’s willingness to compromise and seek peace in a difficult situation. Sometimes, however, as Marvin Ruth pointed out, it is not always in the power of the person to cultivate peaceful relations with everyone. “The Bible says, ‘If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone.’ I try to keep peace with everyone, but sometimes I have done all I can to develop a peaceful relationship with someone and then it’s up to them,” Ruth noted. Acts of peace in daily life can be sacrificial, as in the cases of Dirk Willems and Ahmed Haile, or it can be as simple as forming relationships with others and being their friend.
I think the largest reward from researching this topic is hearing stories. If I had never decided to research this topic, I may never have learned of the experiences of others or come to respect them as I have. With this information, I have come to realize that no matter how hard the circumstances have been, there have always been people who have boldly stood up for their beliefs, unwilling to back down for the sake of fear or humiliation. The experiences of the people I have heard and read about are a testimony to me, in that even though in a world where peace seems impossible, peace is still present. I hope to inform more people about the varied options for resolution in the world other than violence and warfare. Sometimes I think when we lose our hope, it is easier to take the easy route and not think of the consequences of our decision until we’re in too deep. I’m not saying that I hope to eliminate warfare completely, as that is impossible, but I hope to cultivate peace around the world, starting with me. I hope to further investigate how I can promote peace as an individual. I would like to dedicate this paper to my grandpas, Don Leatherman and John Witmer, and dear friend, Marvin Ruth. Thank you all for being open to share your experiences with me and giving me clear pictures of who some peacemakers in the world are!
Works Cited
Baker, Nicholson. The Way the World Works. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2012. Print.
Graves, David. “Dirk Willems Burned After Rescuing Pursuer.” Christianity.com. Christianity.com, 2012. Web. 4 Dec. 2012. <http://www.christianity.com/church/church- history/timeline/1501-1600/dirk-willem-burned-after-rescuing-pursuer-11630015.html>.
Haile, Ahmed Ali. Teatime in Mogadishu. Virginia: Herald Press, 2011. Print.
Jenner, Andrew, and Bonnie Price Lofton. “Striving for Love Amid Filth and Abuse.” Crossroads Fall/Winter/Spring 2011-12: 2-11. Print.
Leatherman, Don. Personal interview. 1 Dec. 2012.
Meltzer, Milton. Ain’t Gonna Study War No More. New York: Random House, 2002. Print.
NIV Teen Study Bible. Michigan: Zondervan, 2008. Print.
Ruth, Marvin. Personal interview. 4 Dec. 2012.
Thermostat. Dir. Titus Peachey. Mennonite Central Committee, 2002. Film.
Van Bragt, Thieleman. The Martyr’s Mirror. Pennsylvania: Herald Press, 1938. Print.
Witmer, John. Personal interview. 1 Dec. 2012.